Degradation of will to learn how to fly

[ChickenHouse]

Guys, I am exhausted and I have to share my experience from todays training session.

A student with 45 hours into PPL training was handed over to me by a fellow FI. I took him up today to start cross country training and make him exam ready.

This student was unable to fly a traffic pattern without looking at the iPad and following some mystic self-grown waypoints. He even had the configuration for the 172 and an altitude pop up in a window when approaching his custom pattern waypoints.

I always start doing three patterns with a new to me student, but this one I stopped and had the second landing full stop. We taxied back to the office to have some kind but serious talk. It took me quite some discussion to let him leave the iPad on the ground and he insisted that he "wants to be a pilot with his own procedures and the iPad is an essential part of it". I was of the impression he was all ears and understood, so we took off second time without electronic brain extensions.

After this ride I stopped working for the day. He was behaving overconfident even upon taxiing, did not have the basic skills to configure the aircraft correct for pattern flying (trimming was the worst I ever saw), was stubborn upon corrections and the 30 minute cross country ride was a total mess. He did not listen to me, or understood, was unable to read (and hold correctly) a map, snapped into fooling identifications (no, this is not the church, this is a telecommunications tower - in his home town!), had no idea how to read the altitudes of airspaces, had the ability to control altitude to +-500, bank +-10 (discussed in the air that he always uses the autopilot), had no idea how to set the gyro, was trying to approach first VRP 1.000ft above allowed, did fight with the tower controller on clearance and was of a stubborn kind I never had RHD. Hey man, your are 45 hours into piloting.

On the ground he tried to tell me he never had a debriefing before (checked later with the fellow that this was a lie) and told me he would do perfectly fine. No, he does not and upon trying to tell him what the issues to work on are, he closed his ears and did not listen (or understood?) at all.

I now told him I would not continue training with him and made a remark in the students records. Usually I do not look at the records of a student, but I found I was not the first to refuse.

What do you think of such stubborn people trying to become an airplane transporter, instead of a pilot or even airmen?

[PA28181]

I'd like to say "there are no bad students, only bad teachers" looking at my golf after 40+ years there is no-one on planet earth who is going to make me a half decent golfer, so accept the fact there are some who are just not willing to listen AND learn. Better they stay on the ground while I'm in the air as there are enough up there to make the sky even more hazardous.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I tried to train a controller once who insisted on using PERT diagrams (remember those?) to do his job. He was so busy with his PERT that he had no time to answer the RT. There are those who will never learn!

[piperboy84]

Some folks are just not meant to fly, this dude would be best finding a new vocation or hobby.

[wiggy]

accept the fact there are some who are just not willing to listen AND learn.

I think there's also an increasing reluctance in our culture these days to accept that some people simply don't have the aptitude for the task ( be it a pilot, ATC'r, or win the X-factor) and no amount of teaching can change that.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Standard disclaimer - I'm a CRI not an FI, so only see people who have already passed a skill test with somebody somewhere.

Yes, absolutely, I've seen this several times. A pilot who has some very fixed ideas about their flying - positioning in the circuit, use (or not) of checklists and procedures, and is not prepared to listen.

A key phrase I've learned to be worried by is "I'm not trying to be a professional pilot" when I try to pick them up on poor cockpit practices. It's a phrase which seems to point at a very poor mentality likely to develop very poor flying habits, then defend them to the death.

Is there a solution? Yes, in my opinion, but the student may not accept it. Politely but clearly explain that there are fundamental deficiencies with their flying, which will take some time to address, and creating a learning plan (which may look suspiciously like the PPL syllabus over again).

Either they'll understand and accept the need for the learning plan, and go the journey with you, or they'll refuse to accept it, in which case it's a very short relationship and they'll go off and annoy somebody else. I've had both.


HD - I still use PERT diagrams for project planning. Damned if I can see how you use them in ATC?

G

[Heston]

I'm an FI and examiner. Agree with Genghis on this. From what the OP describes this student needs to go back to the beginning.

Not understanding the need or having a feel for trimming is always a warning sign for me - it demonstrates a deep lack of feeling for flight and the way the aircraft works.

As an instructor you have to part company with a student who you know is not cut out for flying. And you have to be very blunt with them about why you are doing so. Don't be nice and try to cover up what you see as the problem (but of course keep it polite and professional). You do not want at some time in the future to realise that you taught someone how to kill themselves.

(I remember PERT diagrams! I recall having a plastic template to help draw the different shaped boxes - before the days of computers).

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

What worries me about Genghis's post is how did those people he came across pass a skill test?

[flybymike]

It doesn't apply in the case of the OP, (although it might do in Genghis' case) but the situation is always going to be a bit tricky for both parties when the pilot has been flying for many years and has considerably more experience than the instructor who may only be young and relatively recently qualified and inexperienced.
Old lags tend not to take kindly to suggestions from young whippersnappers.

[Martin_123]

You need to introduce the student with examiners manual where it says exactly what kind of qualities are sought after in trainee in order to pass the skill test. Explain him that he's not allowed to use iPad or autopilot in the skills test therefore if he ever wishes to pass it, he needs to learn how to fly without these. If he refuses to accept this, send him home. Don't do business with stubborn people, they will only lead you in trouble, if this guy screws up in his solo, you're going to be held responsible. Do you really need it?

[Genghis the Engineer]

What worries me about Genghis's post is how did those people he came across pass a skill test?

You ain't the only one worried SSD!

I'm slightly cautious of posting too much detail on the topic, as the people may read it, but, with care....

- Somebody who had had a PPL since before I was born, and now rejoiced in about a third of my flying hours. Had got into the habit of flying with a certain proprietary moving map system on his iPad, which degraded his SA to the point where he declared himself lost, 10 miles from home airfield, after the battery went flat. I think he'd probably been okay when he originally got his PPL, but had never built properly upon it, using whatever crutches were available to avoid forcing himself into good flying standards. Also very poor handling, probably because he just had insufficient mental capacity to be on top of the task.

- Somebody who had passed his PPL around 4 years prior to flying with me, done a moderate amount of "easy" flying in known aeroplanes over known turf, then bought a syndicate share at an airfield he didn't know. The combination of new aeroplane, new airfield, new scenery - and habits bought of an undemanding known flying environment, meant that he pretty much had to learn to fly again.

- Somebody who had learned on very easy low performance aeroplanes in a country with minimal use of radio and minimal controlled airspace issues. He then bought a share in a high performance aeroplane at a busy UK airport with intensive use of radio and lots of controlled airspace - none of which he had strategies for dealing with.


Of the three above, one heard me out, put the effort in, and became a good safe pilot in the aeroplane. One tried, but simply wasn't up to it. One just threw his hands in the air, sold his share, and never flew the aeroplane again. Feel free to try and guess which is which!

G

[PA28181]

Sadly, I must ask, does this person have any indication of being a terrorist? I hope not.

Is there a part of the FI's course in psychology, and terrorist recognition.

:ugh:

[OhNoCB]

Student doesn't sound like the easiest but I can't help but wonder how on EARTH they got to 45 hours like that??

I am not criticising the instructors he had because I do not know the situation properly but in my local PPL club, there is no way, absolutely no way they would have gotten to that stage acting like that.

How/why is this student doing cross country flights and traffic patterns whenever they either haven't been taught or haven't grasped straight and level? Why were they allowed to use an iPad round the circuit (I assume they were since they thought it was OK and already had prompts and waypoints)? Always using the autopilot?! A demo of autopilot usage I can't see a problem with, in fact its a good idea but why has a student been allowed to fly around using an autopilot for 45 hours? Own procedures? Sure why not, everyone eventually does it, but it should be AFTER you have learnt/grasped/experienced the basics otherwise how do you know what to base them on?

I am absolutely baffled by how it got so far.

[tmmorris]

I think there's also an increasing reluctance in our culture these days to accept that some people simply don't have the aptitude for the task ( be it a pilot, ATC'r, or win the X-factor) and no amount of teaching can change that.

You try being a teacher... especially when the parents are paying...

[A and C]

Tim I can understand that, I won't be offering to job swap with you !!

[Capot]

I'm with OhNoCB here.....even allowing for a post that might have been written in haste at the end of the day, there are things that simply don't compute.

45 hours into PPL training was handed over to me by a fellow FI.Just like that? Not a word, not a warning comment? Either the previous FI knew there was a problem but said nothing, or he/she didn't realise that there was a problem. Only two possibilities, and both very bad. (See below re Notes; reading them would have been a poor substitute, but better than nothing.)

As for allowing ab initio circuit training with an iPad on the student's lap; it just beggars belief.

It took me quite some discussion to let him leave the iPad on the ground Come again? You actually discussed it? Why? He just needed to be told that it's totally inappropriate and that's the end of it.

After this ride I stopped working for the dayWell, OK, I can see that it must have been a bad experience. But instructors are supposed to be in charge and able to take control when necessary, and unless he refused to let go of the controls you were not in any danger. Why stop work just because of that, if that's what really happened?

Usually I do not look at the records of a studentFrom the context, you are saying this about a student you have just taken over from another FI. I would have thought it should be SOP to study the notes carefully in that situation, for all sorts of good reasons; that's what they are for, isn't it? There's nothing admirable about refusing to look at them.

What do you think of such stubborn peopleWell they're usually a PITA, but they are very easy to deal with. They need to be told in words on one syllable, that they either follow their FI's advice and instruction, or they can pack up and leave. The most important issue raised by your post is that ab initio instruction at your school/club seems, from what you say which is probably unfair, to need some urgent management changes, to put it mildly.

[dsc810]

@Wiggy
Part it is related to Government/EU handouts.
To get grants you need to demonstrate "accessibility"
So we get the situation were clubs have say it is suitable for everyone or whatever just to get their hands on the wonga.

Then there are the glass half full people who insist that any form of reality based negativity is not allowed.
I know some of them - and typically they have lots of car accidents as they never think it ( eg another car round the corner) might actually happen to them.
Usually once the reality dawns that you/he/she/they cannot actually do whatever it is they refuse to discuss the subject anymore.

To all of this I would add in that private aviation will die unless everyone starts to make it easier for the learner. (though perhaps not ipads in the circuit)
Take the lost at 10 miles away issue mentioned above.
When I flew gliders cross country with not GPS I got lost every single time.
When i used my GPS I did not get lost.
So which would your prefer
1. no GPS and I get lost and end up circling paying no attention to airspeed or anything that might be around else while I try and figure out from the map where I might be, while possibly careering into controlled airspace.
2. Use my GPS whereupon I never ever got lost and no my batteries never ran down and yes I actually looked out more as I was spending less time sodding navigating.
3. I quit private aviation and you have just lost another pilot and contributor to the sport.

[rifruffian]

gotta be able to navigate without electronic aids; its a must.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

dsc810, I hope your post is a wind-up. If not, it's seriously worrying.

if you can't navigate visually in a glider and risk losing control and / or busting airspace you have no right to be up there. GPS should only be a back up. If it's beyond you to be professional in the air, never mind manage basic visual navigation, you should indeed give up as you can't hack it. 'Contributors to the sport' who are likely to contribute the wrong kind of publicity, or even tragic headlines, we can do without.

How do you think VFR flyers coped before GPS? We didn't go around getting lost (well, not often and not for long!), and we didn't bust airspace or lose control of the aeroplane (which was going faster than a glider and had a few more things to keep an eye on). Does your CFI know you can't navigate yet are flying cross country?

I'm an advocate of GPS, but not in place of basic skills!

[flybymike]

Sorry Shaggy but here's another seriously worrying post for you.

I agree with DSC.

GPS should be primary nav and visual should be last resort after radio nav.

Pilots got lost all the time pre GPS and also did a lot more infringing. There was just a lot less fuss about it in the old days because it "went with the territory". It's far less acceptable these days precisely because of GPS and not in spite of GPS.

I've never flown a glider but if I absolutely had to navigate solely by mark 1 eyeball and stopwatch, then I would rather do it in a powered aircraft with a pre determined and pre planned flight plan and a marked route with waypoints than by simply careering around the sky in an unpowered glider looking for thermals and trying to just stay up in the air whilst wondering where the hell I am as I go around in circles.....

[The Ancient Geek]

Its 40mumble years since I flew a glider but it really is simple.
You fly with a map on your lap and keep constant tabs on your location, not difficult at the slow speeds involved.
When you start going in circles it gets easier - the same landmarks keep coming around.

VFR in a powered aircraft is no harder. you should have the ground always in sight and an OS map or drivers atlas is often better for maintaining situational awareness than aviation charts. You are never far fron roads, railways and other significant clues, these are the things you should have planned to use before departure and kept a constant eye on.
Charts keep you clear of hazards, maps tell you where you are.

[jjoe]

As an instructor you have to part company with a student who you know is not cut out for flying. And you have to be very blunt with them about why you are doing so. Don't be nice and try to cover up what you see as the problem (but of course keep it polite and professional).

Name one school/business that will congratulate an instructor for telling a paying student (maybe useless, maybe effed about by previous school/instructor/etc but keen and still wanting to pay) to take up fishing instead...... get my drift?:=

You may say 'change school' and all that- how many times can you do that and get 'they're s**t , we're better, you're great really...... you just need to spend some more money with us....! Oh we'll have to do all that again!:*

How many shows in town or near town?

(This can't have passed all these seasoned forumites by?):suspect:

There is a huge gulf between a 'body' -military, or otherwise, whose aim is to teach/train to a required level in a cost-effective way and 'the also-rans' ie 'The Rest':ouch:

I've done both;Poor experience of the latter?- you betcha.
I know I'm not unique.:{

But surely a school has a reputation etc!- Unfortunately the numbers of people (students etc) involved are so few that that mechanism is redundant.

Having said all that, it still gets done somehow! Go figure.:ok:

No names, no pack-drill. The rest is delusion.:rolleyes:

Hard-hat on.

Hope to post more positive stuff when that's out my system.

[9 lives]

I have in the past done type training to pilots who were well off "type A" personalities - including their confidence in being able to fly their new aircraft.

In doing this I have started by requiring that anything not essential to the training be turned off (to prevent distraction - if that's what you have to say). I muffed this once though, placing his Ipad in the seat pocket, unaware that leaning back on the seat resulted in the Ipad being broken - I had to make up for that one. Since then, I instruct them to stow it!

Next, I would demonstrate the flying maneuver which was within the scope of the training - but do it with all the precision I could manage, and state that was the standard to be accomplished.

That would often either put the new pilot in their place, with appropriate subtlety, or simply distract them from their own way of thinking long enough to pique their interest in learning. If not, I would resort to some maneuvering in slow flight, during which I could generally un nerve them into surrendering their false sense of superiority.

I am quite sympathetic to Chicken House' frustrating situation.

[flybymike]

VFR in a powered aircraft is no harder. You should have the ground always in sight
VFR. Above a solid cloud layer is now perfectly legal. Makes map following a bit tricky though.;)

[ChickenHouse]

I'm with OhNoCB here.....even allowing for a post that might have been written in haste at the end of the day, there are things that simply don't compute.
Easy to explain.
45 hours into PPL training was handed over to me by a fellow FI.
Just like that? Not a word, not a warning comment?
Yes, it is policy for the trainer of the school to pass over students without statements prone to the generation of pre-occupational thoughts. Certain parts of the syllabus tend to be very personal chemistry between trainer and student. If it is potentially dangerous, get the student out, if not, discuss earliest after first flight.
As for allowing ab initio circuit training with an iPad on the student's lap; it just beggars belief.
I have seen this now several times at several schools and occasions. This is what we have to face in modern times.
It took me quite some discussion to let him leave the iPad on the ground
Come again? You actually discussed it? Why? He just needed to be told that it's totally inappropriate and that's the end of it.
The times of civil military behavior is over in commercials. We elder knew that we have to work hard, think hard, use our brain to gain improvements. We elder knew that sometimes we have to learn hard to overcome the mountains barrier, to climb on ice walls just to really understand facts deep inside - even if this insight has been gained before by thousands of people, because we have to KNOW. Biggest quantum leaps in personal development are always located behind the terror and pain of hard labor. The current youngest are not willing to strain themselves, they google instead of think.

Just a suggestion, try to advice one of the younger to really work hard on an issue to understand it really in depth. Then let them go and look how they get the result. Probability is maybe 99+% use search engines, smartphone, some even look at Youtube videos only, very rarely they take a book or even start thinking. And they will always argue with you that this is the "most efficient and modern" way to do that, because "people have done that before, why should I?". In the end, they have gathered enough monkey answers to fool everybody into belief they understood. But, Artificial Intelligence has entered biological reality and if you dig into deeper discussion, you all of a sudden find out they can only pretend to understand, but on an extreme and impressive high level. Same I have seen throughout many, many management circles in recent years.

My belief, they will be subject to social, mental and economic degradation because of this. Former young generations did transformations and developed society, which is often brought as an excuse, but this time it is different, because no additional value is generated upon transition. But that is another story. Observation simply is: they do not understand and they do not obey, even if there is an urgent need to do so. I know this has been told of each and every young generation, but I fear this time **** definitely hits the fan. The only faith left to me is the belief someone from the younger will catch the falling.
After this ride I stopped working for the day
Well, OK, I can see that it must have been a bad experience. But instructors are supposed to be in charge and able to take control when necessary, and unless he refused to let go of the controls you were not in any danger. Why stop work just because of that, if that's what really happened?
Very easy, I do this for pleasure and because I have fun teaching. I don't do that for living. Over many years and up to this experience, I always got my students on a track I was comfortable to let them with. This time I was defeated and had to re-think whether I am still the right one to do training. Self reflection is my second nature.
Usually I do not look at the records of a studentFrom the context, you are saying this about a student you have just taken over from another FI. I would have thought it should be SOP to study the notes carefully in that situation, for all sorts of good reasons; that's what they are for, isn't it? There's nothing admirable about refusing to look at them.
Again, this is policy at this school and I carry that policy. There are two important things in it.

First is quality assurance, we only pass the number of hours and the status in syllabus to the overtaking FI. If there is a deviation in acquired skills from the status they should be at, we have a weekly review board meeting to improve following the written syllabus and review our capabilities to asses students skills. FIs also are on rotating schedule through the phases of training, to keep knowledge on all stages.

Second is avoiding pre-occupation traps. We are all people, student and FI, and we make personal judgements. Flying at PPL stage stays a very personal topic and everybody does have her or his own style. We are a bit old fashioned, but stay to it. We do not want to train the usual push button monkey, carrying tourist cattle optimized from A to B, we train pilots and sometimes we have the pleasure to find an airmen. As this is very personal and has to do with a foundation of non-trainable aptitude, we try to get the student in contact with several different ways of flying - from FIs from the bush-pilot gene pool to airline captains enjoying a different world. We do this to find a mental match between student and FI. This is why we change FI at least three times in training.
What do you think of such stubborn people Well they're usually a PITA, but they are very easy to deal with. They need to be told in words on one syllable, that they either follow their FI's advice and instruction, or they can pack up and leave. The most important issue raised by your post is that ab initio instruction at your school/club seems, from what you say which is probably unfair, to need some urgent management changes, to put it mildly.
No, they are no longer easy to deal with, because they are the brave new world, like it or not. Yes, in former times most of them would have been sent back to grandpa to get their back plated, but again, these days are gone to paleontology. We had long discussions at that specific school how to deal with it and am struggling every day with the task, but so far we had success for all but this one.

Ok, for those who made it to the end, I apologize for the long text, but I felt to must write this down. I owe you a pint upon reading to the end ;-).

[rnzoli]

What do you think of such stubborn people trying to become an airplane transporter, instead of a pilot or even airmen?I think you, and in general, the whole aviation community (examiners, fellow CFIs) should be even more stubborn that he won't ever fly solo with that personal attitude.

Real life story: wealthy person wants to impress his peers, buys an aircraft and takes on pilot training, but without respecing rules of safety or even the laws of physics. Several instructors give up on him, but he keeps on seeking new ones, offering higher training fees. Eventually someone convinces him that at least for the exams, he must behave himself. He does, he passes the skill test. A few months later, he takes 3 of his passengers on a sight-seeing flight in his own airplane, and when returning to the home (grass) airfield, he buzzes the field, then makes a steep climbing turn, in which he stalls, spins and crashes the airplane from low altitude. This irresponsible pilot dies and kills 3 unsuspecting passangers as well. This irresponsible pilot also spois the respect of general public towards aviators for years.

So you got to be tough on this one and even more stubborn than him, otherwise it's sure as hell, that someday he will kill himself and also killing innocent people flying with him or on the ground. I can't imagine any greater failure for a CFI than the fatal accident of his/her former student due to pilot error.

[Heston]

Name one school/business that will congratulate an instructor for telling a paying student (maybe useless, maybe effed about by previous school/instructor/etc but keen and still wanting to pay) to take up fishing instead...... get my drift?:=Mine. For the reasons I said and as rnzoli has just reiterated - the risk is just too big.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

flybymike - I agree - your post is worrying. Pilots who can't navigate VFR in VMC in sight of the ground worry me. They are not really pilots and should stay on the ground.

[Capot]

Chickenhouse, thank you for the full reply to my points. It was certainly worth reading and food for thought.

However; I rather thought you might castigate my remarks as a "military" approach and therefore out of date. But, sooner or later, there comes a time when you have to be blunt and simply not take any more nonsense. This protects you, the school and above all the student from future harm. I am aware of the financial considerations for a school of showing a paying student the door, but there is a moment when the costs of not doing that outweigh the costs of doing it.

You refer to your students in several places as future commercial pilots; I'm wondering about that. I have always believed that in general, ab initio students who intend to become commercial pilots need to learn discipline and conformity at an early stage, while recognising that there must be a pathway for getting a PPL for amateur flying and then going commercial.

Again, with respect to your methods, you, perhaps your school, seem to me to be more pre-occupied with relational abstracts than you need to be or should be; this is illustrated in your use of the phrase "statements prone to the generation of pre-occupational thoughts". There's actually nothing wrong with "pre-occupational thoughts" if they give you a clue about the character and abilities of a student you have been tasked with taking on. After all, you and he wasted a couple of circuits while you found out what the notes would have told you. I simply don't buy the belief that reading them is harmful.

Similarly; "This is what we have to face in modern times." Who is holding the gun to your head? If you, or your school, think it's wrong, don't allow it. It really is as simple as that. Explain the reasons, if necessary.

I recognise that you are obviously sincere and experienced, and take your instructing and student welfare very seriously, and I admire you for that. There is of course no single "right" way to do everything, and perhaps we should move on with that thought.

[jjoe]

Quote:
Name one school/business that will congratulate an instructor for telling a paying student (maybe useless, maybe effed about by previous school/instructor/etc but keen and still wanting to pay) to take up fishing instead...... get my drift?

Heston wrote:

Mine. For the reasons I said and as rnzoli has just reiterated - the risk is just too big.

Well, if you are oversubscribed you may have the luxury but;

Who said you HAVE to give them a licence- just keep going, IPAD or no IPAD, and don't put them anywhere near a 'test' or keep failing them if they insist- where's the risk in that?

My point was the opposite- student able (proved), willing, following all the rules etc but school deliberately not covering the syllabus to 'extend' training-so at any point if you changed school, your records would not show 'completion' of any 'module' if that's the correct term!:suspect:

As far as GPS is concerned- even 'rogue' schools assume that you will use one once qualified and the 'pilotage' NAV element is as long or as short as they can get away with in my experience. :rolleyes:
For the small (relative) cost of the kit, you really would have to be a stubborn so and so to refuse one for religious reasons; why would you deliberately risk getting lost or unsure or whatever else NAV. can induce?(note that this does NOT mean you should not have a clue where you are without it !):8

SSD wrote;

flybymike - I agree - your post is worrying. Pilots who can't navigate VFR in VMC in sight of the ground worry me. They are not really pilots and should stay on the ground.

They are really pilots 'cos they have a licence to prove it and that's the test -otherwise there's little point in wasting time/money to gain it.

All pilots can navigate VFR IN VMC but not everywhere all the time eg unfamiliar surroundings so they use a GPS or RadNav or ask for directions or do something else like look at a map- they don't crash or infringe everytime they fly;(some may frighten themselves, some may be blissfully unaware)
There are of course people who are better at traditional map/compass NAV than others and we like them too.;)

[Pace]

I am slightly puzzled with this thread. There are students of all personality types who maybe should not be flying not just type A personalities.
I will post two examples
One was a Female student who was very compliant, very eager to learn but there were many alarm bells about her. This was when I was a student myself and the instructors did everything tho get her to solo.
finally she went and it was a disaster. once in the circuit there was a panic stricken distress call. She had completely frozen. Another aircraft with the CFI flew alongside her and after a lot of talking to she was coaxed down to a landing of sorts. She never flew again.

The other was the most meticulous pilot I knew and great VFR but had an IMCR. He asked me to fly IFR with him in bad weather to Ireland. The cloud base was maybe 700 feet and we climbed into the blue at FL080. He kept complaining that he could not breath properly and wanted to descend into IMC at 4000 feet. i could not understand why he would want to do that? it made no sense.
over the IOM the solid cloud tops broke to give good views of the sea below and he was again happy.
Coming back he flew but the weather had past and we flew at 2000 feet VFR he was back to his usual immaculate precision and confidence. Someone had given him an IMCR when he was a complete danger to himself in such conditions

There are pilots who can be cockey and who know it all. That can be a good trait if they survive that phase because they can become very confident, decisive pilots who make sound decisions.

There is always the rule of flying within your own limits and the aircraft limits and knowing those limits. Often earlier on those personalities do not know their own limits or respect the aircraft limits but if they survive that can become very good pilots.

I will also add personality compatibility as sometimes two personalities do not get the most from each other and it becomes a battle of wills
Yes there maybe a complete nutcase who is a danger to himself and others but I don't believe that is confined to a certain personality type

Pace

[Gertrude the Wombat]

You are never far fron roads, railways and other significant clues
Suffolk at 1,500' with 5k vis - "lots of twisty little villages, all alike".

[jjoe]

I am slightly puzzled with this thread. There are students of all personality types who maybe should not be flying not just type A personalities.

I presume you mean 'should not be flying PIC, alone or with passengers'?

The OP seemed exasperated at the poor quality of this chap's flying and his attitude after 45 hours- Well, SOMEBODY allowed it for 45 hours which proves my point that you must blame the school for not putting their foot down if they were really that bothered!

[Pace]

JJOE

If he had been placed with a number of instructors and they all agree that the guy has some sort of personality disorder then of course he should be asked to leave.
My sole point that picking out a type A personality who maybe a bit cocky or arrogant is not always a bad trait and can be a good thing if channelled in the right way.

Obviously wealthy and successful businessmen don't always become good pilots yet have the money to buy high performance, sophisticated aircraft where some may rely on that sophistication to cover up lack of their abilities.

i quote the Cirrus where very few chute pulls appear to have been needed chute pulls had the pilots been competent at flying in the conditions they flew in and actually had the ability to fly the aircraft.

Maybe they would have been better sticking to 172s and building solid experience first. VFR or IFR
You will always get rogue students but I too am amazed that some of these pilots have built up 45 hours plus without anyone telling them they were wasting their money and time and in those cases the schools must be at fault too.
Those rogue students or pilots can be any personality type

Pace

[Heston]

I have no problem with students who are slow learners and who are happy to put in the time and money, as long as I know they can make safe pilots in the end. It does nobody any favours to keep someone going who is never going to make it or, worse, might just get it together on the day enough to fool an examiner into passing him or her but who is going to be a danger to themselves and others. We all have a duty here - you can't just say that the exam pass is all that's required because that's the standard.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

All pilots can navigate VFR IN VMC but not everywhere all the time eg unfamiliar surroundings so they use a GPS or RadNav or ask for directions or do something else like look at a map- they don't crash or infringe everytime they fly;(some may frighten themselves, some may be blissfully unaware)There are of course people who are better at traditional map/compass NAV than others and we like them too.

jjoe, my definition of VFR nav does allow use of maps! All pilots SHOULD be able to navigate VFR in VMC everywhere all the time the ground is in view. How do you think we did it before GPS in aeroplanes with no navaids? We didn't blunder into controlled airspace or land in a field to ask the way!

Once you can visually navigate, by all means make life easier by using GPS. But you MUST have the manual backup, the basic skill, in your 'toolbag'.

In the world of roads it's expected some will slavishly follow a GPS for 200 miles in the wrong direction on a journey that should take half an hour, or follow the GPS instructions to turn right, but to make the right turn onto a railway line (both these are not that uncommon). In the air we expect better, and the ability to apply gross error checks by ensuring the GPS info agrees with our visual nav deductions is essential.

[jjoe]

but I too am amazed that some of these pilots have built up 45 hours plus without anyone telling them they were wasting their money and time and in those cases the schools must be at fault too.


'Personality' aside for the minute.

Pace, I AM NOT AMAZED in the slightest! In fact the opposite- this is happening all the time and why do you call him a rogue student?

'Rogue' school maybe? No, normal school.

He made his case of how he viewed his flying and the school let him do it for 45 hours- who knows why they passed him on to CH,(he seems to be a good guy instructing for the right reasons), the stude doesn't think he's wasting his money- he thinks he's doing alright 'cos the school let him think that or he didn't take criticism on board! (This may all just have been mumbled/disguised comments meant to keep the status quo and not really risk upsetting and losing him;which happens-it's a business after all).

But again why should the school care- at that rate he'll need at least 45 more hours to undo it and more to re-learn........Kerching!!
He'll never get a licence, it would seem, unless the school give him one and he can buy glass cockpits, autopilots, chute-pull thingies or never fly again or whatever.....

The magic number, 45 hours- stude thinks he must be ready now;quite possible but not probable not because of aptitude/weather/continuity alone but school income dictats- they will not cover the syllabus in that time let alone prepare for test/put you forward -if you do exams first they get upset. They don't say take medical first just in case you are disqualified that way etc etc why would they?

I simply don't buy that a school will tell someone they are wasting their money unless they are permanently under-resourced and under pressure for results which most aren't.

Cynical? Moi?

As far as personalities go , very good suggestions have been made wrt dealing with specific types IF THE SCHOOL WANTS TO!


jjoe, my definition of VFR nav does allow use of maps! All pilots SHOULD be able to navigate VFR in VMC everywhere all the time the ground is in view. How do you think we did it before GPS in aeroplanes with no navaids? We didn't blunder into controlled airspace or land in a field to ask the way!

Once you can visually navigate, by all means make life easier by using GPS. But you MUST have the manual backup, the basic skill, in your 'toolbag'.

In the world of roads it's expected some will slavishly follow a GPS for 200 miles in the wrong direction on a journey that should take half an hour, or follow the GPS instructions to turn right, but to make the right turn onto a railway line (both these are not that uncommon). In the air we expect better, and the ability to apply gross error checks by ensuring the GPS info agrees with our visual nav deductions is essential.

Ah well! when you start using words like SHOULD.....!!!

SSD, good basic points but my post is still completely correct and you're agreeing with it.
I mentioned pilotage/maps/asking for 'steers' on the radio (although it has been known for lost pilots to land in a field etc. -and to blunder into CAS with or without GPS!) even in the good old days.

Even lost pilots are really pilots; just unsure of their position!

I made no mention of GPS being infallible or using it incorrectly!

Heston wrote;
you can't just say that the exam pass is all that's required because that's the standard.

Until EASA or whoever decide 'continuous assessment' a la CSE style is acceptable THAT IS PRECISELY ALL YOU CAN SAY!

might just get it together on the day enough to fool an examiner into passing him or her

Somebody has to put them forward with completion certificates etc.
Are examiners able to be fooled- who examines them? More fools?

[funfly]

I think that the posters on here are in danger of using one very bad (and frustrating) example to question all students.

[Pace]

I think that the posters on here are in danger of using one very bad (and frustrating) example to question all students.

There are some really brilliant students and PPls and some really bad ones you would never even send your worst enemy up with never mind loved ones.
Between those extremes are a vast variety most who respect their own limitations and fly within those limitations and then there are those who don't

the problem is that being issued a PPL we are qualified and to the outside world we are pilots to a standard which must mean we are good to our unknowing PAX.

The reality is what my CFI told me when I got my PPL 30 years ago!

"This is a bit of paper which licenses you to start to learn to fly on your own and that learning never stops"

Even now I look back and wonder how I survived some of the mistakes I made
Maybe an initial PPL should mean you carry an L plate for your PAX to see or we should have a restricted PPL ?

Even now I meet some pilots who are so good so professional in what they do that I feel humbled by them and look back to when I struggled to afford 12 hours a year and shudder at the word qualified pilot and how many people i flew who trusted those words " qualified Pilot"

Hence why its so important to fly within your limits, the aircraft limits and to know what those limits are as Mother luck isn't with all of us all the time

Pace

[Heston]

Heston wrote;
Quote:
you can't just say that the exam pass is all that's required because that's the standard.
Until EASA or whoever decide 'continuous assessment' a la CSE style is acceptable THAT IS PRECISELY ALL YOU CAN SAY!

Quote:
might just get it together on the day enough to fool an examiner into passing him or her
Somebody has to put them forward with completion certificates etc.

That's right. The exam pass is simply a snap shot of performance on the day. I've known it happen - student is over confident and brow beats the instructor into letting him take the test. Instructor says yes, thinking its OK because student will fail. But student flukes a pass. Instructor "Jeez I should never have let him take it".

The examiner is entitled to expect that a student turning up for test has indeed completed the course and is at a sufficient standard to pass in the opinion of the instructor who puts the student forward for test.

[rnzoli]

Until EASA or whoever decide 'continuous assessment' a la CSE style is acceptable THAT IS PRECISELY ALL YOU CAN SAY!

No, the license is not "all that you need" for flying.
You also need a valid class rating (which expires periodically) and a medical for example :)
Moreover, even with a valid PPL, type rating, and medical, you break the rules if you fly when you are not fully fit (e.g., recent alcohol consumption or a really bad cold/sore throat etc.)
If you rent, the operator/owner will refuse to give the airplane to you, if you demonstrate poor airmanship at the initial checkride.
You can be fined for busting airspace etc.
And eventually you can die, with perfecly valid papers, if you (or any of us) gets too reckless.

So there's a lot more to safe flying than the papers, legally, professionally and socially as well.

As earlier written, PPL is just a license to learn by yourself, nothing more, nothing less.

[jjoe]

Heston,Pace.

I respect your experience etc. but I think you are missing my point or I've not made it well enough.

Why are you still concentrating on the poor student, however rich/inept/deluded he may or may not be?

This is a schools/instructing issue which the hapless student can all but go along with- only 1 body is to blame for producing a 'non-compliant' student after 45 hours and that is the school that gave/allowed him 45 hours of 'non-compliant' flying and is now complaining about it!

How about give him his money back and then tell him thanks but no thanks? 'Sorry sir but that 45 hours we gave you was a pile of pants and of little use towards your PPL- would you recommend us please?'

Is that likely?

rnzoli:
The quote you highlight is responding to a very specific claim.
Read the context of the OP and subsequent posts and it clearly runs towards a requirement of the skills test/exam 'on the day'
and again the point I make above is the point being made substantially.
Of course those other things are required on-going.

funfly:I think that the posters on here are in danger of using one very bad (and frustrating) example to question all students.

I am questioning the schools not the students. Keep up at the back!

[Crash one]

This student does not amaze me either. What does amaze me is the fact that such attitudes are tolerated by the schools. Circuit (pattern) operations using electronic devices is not in the syllabus and should have been metaphorically kicked out of the student long before 45 hours.
The fact that it took some discussion/persuasion to leave the iPad behind indicates that the student has little respect for instructors.
This is the reason we have half baked pilots, apprentices, business leaders, politicians, etc. they want to start at the top and know it all.
I am not an instructor but if I were I would refuse to teach such morons. In which case I would probably not pass the FI course, nor be employed as one.
Just my opinion, cos I'm too bloody old fashioned.

[Heston]

This is a schools/instructing issue which the hapless student can all but go along with- only 1 body is to blame for producing a 'non-compliant' student after 45 hours and that is the school that gave/allowed him 45 hours of 'non-compliant' flying and is now complaining about it!

Totally agree, which is why I say its vital that instructors are blunt with students who aren't going to make it or who have the wrong attitude to learning. In the case of ChickenHouse's student somebody should have made a stand much earlier and explained to the student that, for example, he wasnt going pass a skills test using an iPad that way.

We dont know how the current state of affairs came about, but faced with where he is now, CH is right to refuse to teach this student.

[rnzoli]

the school that gave/allowed him 45 hours of 'non-compliant' flying and is now complaining about it!

We don't know, whether the school, or the previous instructors allowed the use of iPad to ease the workload on the student in the beginning , or simply the student started to use additional tools after seeing his performance not developing in line with his hours spent in training.

Either way, the main issue is not the use of gadets, but his apparent stall on the learning curve. Continued use of the iPad will not bring him forward, so a serious talk is required with the school and multiple instructors, face to face.

And finally, I don't think the school forced the student pilot to use an iPad for navigation. They provided the possibility to learn with the safety of an instructor, so if the student is unable and especially unwilling to change behaviour, I don't see why the training cost should be paid back to the student.

I saw a case where a student quit about 20 hours mid-training, because he realized that he just can't navigate, it was too much for him. Maybe this is a similar case, but now the student assumes he can plug in his shortcomings with an iPad and an autopilot....

[Crash one]

We don't know, whether the school, or the previous instructors allowed the use of iPad to ease the workload on the student in the beginning , or simply the student started to use additional tools after seeing his performance not developing in line with his hours spent in training.

The student should not have the choice to use "tools" of his choosing without the school's approval & the school shouldn't deviate from the syllabus by allowing them. This whole scenario is nonsense. The school is at fault from the beginning by allowing such behaviour. An ab-initio student may not even know that going solo is not a licence similar to a car drivers licence. My good wife thought the day I went solo that I was now qualified, it took some explaining to enlighten her.
If this student was allowed to continue thinking that he was in charge it is the fault of the school and their policy..
He was bound to "stall" on the learning curve if the curve was being set by himself.
Take this senseless scenario a few steps further, hand the complete rookie the keys and let him get on with it!
As for gadgets. Some years ago during a Classroom Nav lesson we were given : plot course London HR to Truro. I rather flippantly remarked, about south westish. The student beside me said, no we have to be a bit more accurate than that as he punched buttons on his electronic device, 069 degrees magnetic in fact. There was only one answer to that, Take a big packed lunch!

[rnzoli]

You're quite right about the above.

But there is one scenario that I can still imagine, where the student requested the presence of the iPad as a secondary device to verify his position against his primary VFR navigation attempts. It's not illegal to have such secondary device on board and an unsuspecting/inexperienced instructor might have initially allowed this as a supposedly "harmless" temporary aid (without the school / chief pilot actually knowing). Things went wrong when the student got accustomed to the devices and with the gradually lowered navigational support from his instructor, he grew too dependent on the iPad instead, which is an obvious dead-end street. I bet the previous instructor realized this and tried to talk him out of this habit, but the student didn't want to "give up" the "illusionary" progress he made! That's why he became very stubborn with the previous instructor, who in turn, handed the student over to the OP.

Either way, the solution is in the hands of the student. He must let the iPad go from the cockpit, and this is the OP's problem.

The student can either swallow the cost of the dead-end street excursion in training, or sue the flight school and the previous instructor to get the money back. (Or agree on lower fees for a few additional hours - this would be the best for the above scenario. ) but, this is NOT the OP's problem.

[jjoe]

rnzoli, you seem to be concocting novel scenarios to absolve the school of this. They are up to their neck in this but will get away with it.

If you say 'Use Ipad, no fly' you have no income. If you say 'Use Ipad, do again-won't count' then he may run off and you have no income (and we may find out if that is so) but if 'allow anyway' and say nothing then you have 45 hours of 'trial flights'! which will have been sold as 'all count towards your licence, sir' but he is unable to fly competently and will NEVER get anywhere near a licence to become an airplane transporter, instead of a pilot or even airmen? whatever that means.

Yes, it seems CH has been thrown a hospital pass and the school should be scratching their heads (not he) and held liable but won't be.

or sue the flight school and the previous instructor to get the money back. (Or agree on lower fees for a few additional hours - this would be the best for the above scenario.

Really? Is there precedence for this ?They should be named and shamed and fight their corner AND sued -but on what basis?

As I said in an earlier post

Who said you HAVE to give them a licence- just keep going, IPAD or no IPAD, and don't put them anywhere near a 'test' or keep failing them if they insist- where's the risk in that?

If this chap is after a licence and has been hood-winked into thinking he's nearly there, then there's some explaining to do about the 'value-for-money' of his thus-far spent £7-8000+ ! and it doesn't look promising.

An expensive lesson in the tricks of the GA training industry.

[Crash one]

I can see the possibility of the "secondary" device but the instructor would be seriously at fault to allow it. He, the instructor, is the secondary device. He may perhaps allow the student to show him his toys but not as a Nav aid or "learning" aid. There is no excuse, the student has to abide by the syllabus or he has not completed the recognised course and is not fit to take the GFT.
Secondary electronic devices are not "required" at any time at PPL level, they may be very useful, most of us have one, but they are no more necessary than the electric windows, cruise control, and auto transmission in my car.
I don't see any other way to put it. Learn the basics get the licence just like the rest of us, then play with your toys.

[mary meagher]

Definitely, in this case the flying school is negligent. I presume there is some qualified person in charge? That person (or commmitee of management) must set rules for training, and must supervise training so that any student who brings electronic aids along is informed in print that this is not permitted.

When I was a newly qualified instructor in gliders at Booker, I had a father and son who had signed up for a 5 day course, both of them together, with me.
The first day, we covered the basics. Lookout, effects and use of controls.
Coordination of rudder and ailerons. Ability to fly in more or less a straight line.

The second day, we had to do it again, as neither father nor son was able to manage even a close approximation to flying in a straight line.

The third day, back to square one. At this stage I am thinking is it me? although I had success with previous pupils, I was still new at instructing, so I went to the Chief Flying Instructor, told him that my two pupils were failing to progress, and could he please fly with them and sort out the problem.

He flew with both of them that day. And took me aside and said "Mary, there is no way that either of these chaps will ever learn to fly. It is not your fault at all. Some people will never get it."

The CFI told me to try one more day, and then tell them - if no improvement in basic handling was demonstrated, to suggest taking up golf. Father and son....must have been hereditary.

[Crash one]

There is, I believe an old Chinese proverb from the book of inane Chinese proverbs. : He who knows that he knows not is a wise man, He who knows not that he knows not is a fool indeed.

[150 Driver]

A view from the LHS.

I have held my PPL for three years now, approaching 300 hours so still a novice.

But I do have a Type A personality with what sound like the typical business background being mentioned above, and qualifying as a pilot is recent enough to remember what learning to fly was like.

For my 40th I was bought a trial lesson, at the end it was suggested that I buy a log book and log the flight as it would count towards me getting a licence. I asked how many hours it took and was told 45.

Sure, a piece of paper was given to me which said it 'might take more' but 45 is what I heard.

So I bought the log book, and booked my second hour, by the end of which I'd be nearly 5% of the way there, right ?

At the end of every lesson I added it up and worked out how many more lessons I'd need to get to 45, and how many weeks that would be.

More importantly, dealing with family finances there was a figure of how much more I was 'allowed' to spend.

I just assumed that magically everything would just happen at or around 45 hours to make me pass the test. I didn't really need to listen, surely, it would just happen ?

Partway through the course I had to change schools (it was illness of the FI, not anything I'd done !). At around 40 hours I was mortified (and my family financial controller was furious) to be told that I might need another ten.

None of this was helped by a friend who did get his at 45 and assured me that was what 'everyone did'. (I hadn't found PPRUNE by then...)

I pushed to be put in for the test - the system worked and I failed, deservedly so. The same weekend a local experienced pilot was killed in a crash which looked like pilot error.

That was the wake up call for me. It was only now that I started working hard on learning to fly - this bloody thing wasn't going to beat me. At around 70 hours I retook, a bag of nerves but somehow passed. Shortly afterwards in IMC I learned how little I knew - the best leveller I had. At that point the ego got thrown away and from then on I leave the Type A personality on the ground. I took the IRR shortly afterwards and if only time allows am planning the CBIR.

I'd like to think I was nothing like CH's student (I certainly wasn't an iPad user and could fly a visual circuit) but suspect I was seen as the student from hell at the time.

My personality type overall hasn't changed, but I now know my limitations and leave the ego (and quite often the plane) on the ground. I'm now disappointed if at the end of a flight I haven't learned something and improved something.

So perhaps this student might be an OK pilot in the making, just needs something to make him change his behaviours ? Or maybe I'm being eternally optimistic ?

Does he have the 45 hour fixation that I did ? Is that anyone's fault for selling a 45 hour dream ?

Whatever, if anyone can make this guy into a pilot (not an aircraft driver) sounds like it is CH.

[jjoe]

150 Driver.


Nail on the head!
What a refreshing, honest post!
Ring any bells, boys?

But I will still not excuse the schools 'hour-building' for the sake of it.

I'm now disappointed if at the end of a flight I haven't learned something and improved something.

Did you feel like that at the end of a 'LESSON' if you were TAUGHT b*gger all?- time after time?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've been mulling this fascinating but disturbing thread over the last couple of days.

One thing occurred to me - I could be completely wrong, but it may just fit the expressed facts.


Is it possible that our hero's 45 hours are actually 40 hours of flying with mates and playing with his iPad (or even flying a PC sim), and maybe 5 hours of dual with several instructors all of whom he peed off? Possibly because of clearly rather "strong" personality, he bull****ted his way into persuading people that those were real hours, rather than pax/playing hours? Who knows, maybe he believes it himself.

I don't know, wasn't there, am conjecting wildly - but it might just fit.

G

[jjoe]

Nice one Geng. It's a whodunnit! LOL.

Over to you Chicken- we (GtE says so;sort of), and you, need some evidence of these 45 hours to remain sane!

However, some passionate responses elicited and a cool appreciation by an expert.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Nail on the head!
What a refreshing, honest post!
Ring any bells, boys?No, not really. Alien to me, that was.


Quote:
I'm now disappointed if at the end of a flight I haven't learned something and improved something.
Did you feel like that at the end of a 'LESSON' if you were TAUGHT b*gger all?- time after time?

Absolutely NOT!

I came to GA with my eyes open. I'd done gliding in the late '70s (a bit - 'till I got pissed off driving tractors and pulling private owner gliders around for a few precious minutes in the air). I'd spent 3 full weekends, 07:00 to 19:00 each day, before I even got into a cockpit! Thanks a bunch, D&L! (It WAS a long time ago!).

So I went to Barton in 1978 for a PPL determined not to be pissed around again. Made that clear, in the crowded clubhouse one wet Sunday afternoon after calling in to Barton, to the chairman of LAC. He promised me they would not piss me about as D&L had done.

I was not pissed around by LAC. But I did, sometimes, have to 'manage' my progress according to my 'Birch & Bramson', what lessons I had in what order etc. Sometimes an instructor would jump into the RH seat of the 150 with "OK SSD, what would you like to do today". So I had to tell him. I had many instructors in the 8 months it took me to get a PPL, but I consider that an advantage - it taught me there are more than a few ways to skin all these cats.

The CFI was keeping an eye on overall progress and all lessons were of course logged to ensure the entire syllabus was covered, and for the important stuff there were some really excellent instructors. The gentleman who sent me solo at 10 hours, well before I was expecting it (ex WW2 Lancaster pilot, later V bomber pilot, as I discovered later the only guy I know who can gain height in a Chippy while aerobatting it and unpeeling an orange at the same time) knew I was better than I thought I was.

That same gentleman conducted my GFT (now called a skill test, I believe) less than 40 hours after my first PPL lesson and I did make a few mistakes (I think the PPL minimum was 38 hours back then - and it included spinning!). He walked away from the 150 saying "thank you very much. A very enjoyable flight".

"But.... Did I pass?"

"Oh yes! Of course".

So my PPL course was immensely rewarding - every lesson gave me new experiences and knowledge to hoover up (I was still in my mid 20s). Some of the instructors were ho hum, but some were aviators to a very high degree and they passed that enthusiasm for airmanship and love of flying to us newbies.

I'd had to 'manage' my lessons myself at times, ensuring stuff I was happy with wasn't repeated, and stuff I had difficulty with was resolved. I'm not a 'type A' personality, but I'm a pretty good project manager.

It was intensive, it was demanding, and there were times I had to bunk off work when the wx was right to do a x-country. But it was amazing!

And talking of VFR nav I remember sitting in a 150 one day awaiting the CFI for my first dual flight out of the circuit (Barton - Crewe - Wigan - Barton). He strapped in and said "OK Mr SSD, where's your plan?".

"What plan?"

"How are you going to fly me from here to Crewe, Wigan, and back here with no plan?".

"Head west to Warrington, turn left down the Low Level Route to just south of Northwich, pick up the railway to Crewe, do a 180, follow the railway back up the LLR to Wigan, then turn right to return over Leigh and Astley to here".

Which is exactly what we did!

I find much of what has been posted on this thread to be quite alien. I hope the above explains why.

[flybymike]

My recollection of the 38 hour course was that it was classed as an "approved " course which had to be completed within 6 months.
I didn't manage either the calendar limit or the hours limit, but I did have to go through the spinning bit....

[foxmoth]

Approved course was 35 hours when I did it, including spinning. mAnaged it in the time but that was on a flying Scholarship, so pretty intensive.


SSD, it is Alien to you because you were not that sort of student and have not had to instruct one like that!

150 driver, I think you hit the nail on the head with

I just assumed that magically everything would just happen at or around 45 hours to make me pass the test. I didn't really need to listen, surely, it would just happen ?

Basically you did not listen to the fact that it might take longer than 45 and suffered the consequences!

[Pilot DAR]

Sure, a piece of paper was given to me which said it 'might take more' but 45 is what I heard.

Expanding on a thought...

PPL candidates: If an examiner gives you a license after a successful flight test - you are a pilot, but you are not at all an experienced pilot. You have demonstrated the minimum skill set to pass the test.

YOU - not the flying school, were and remain responsible for assuring that you seek out the required training. Yes, you rely upon the school to lead the path, but you should take responsibility too. Blaming the school 'cause you did not learn something well is a cop out. The skills of piloting "well" take hundreds of hours, 45 is a minimum. You must know that, and keep skill building, both solo and dual - even after PPL.

An hour a month -with no Ipad - is a minimum for skills maintenance for a new pilot - if that hours is skills practice, rather than a $100 burger run. If you want to be a skilled pilot who flies in for an airport burger, you should plan on two hours a month flying, with the second hour being the Ipad cross country burger run flight.

To maintain your skills fly the circuits and the abnormal/emergency practice with as little cockpit distraction as possible - eyes out as much as you can manage. Put the cockpit toys away for the circuit or the Hasel zone, they won't help you while you're learning and flying skill building.

If your school lets you fill the cockpit with gadgets and cords for your circuit and practice area work, they are not doing you any favours! You need to fly airspace aware - so take a folded properly chart, all us old pilots managed okay with just a chart, and flying has not changed that much!

[Pilot DAR]

I attended a test pilot symposium in London, Ontario the last two days. Excellent, just excellent. One of the presentations focused on making and then flying to the risk vs benefit decision. The speaker cited several cases where the pilot took a risk, and there was no plausible benefit. Unacceptable.

But why would this apply only to test flying? Sure, this was great advice for test pilots, but that good advice flows much further outward that just test flight - to all flight! If you are contemplating something which adds risk (and impromptu show for the tower, or buzz of your friend's house, for example) ask yourself: Is there risk? Is there benefit? If they don't at least equalize, don't do it. Why would you?

Every flight I flew as an observer with the Government Flying Service of Hong Kong a few years back, was preceded by a risk vs benefit analysis written out on a form. In completing that form, it could take you to: "don't fly", or "don't do that". If it did, the plane did not fly the flight, and, a copy of your RvsB analysis was on file there, so no fudging the numbers

[DeltaV]

Expanding on a thought...
you are a pilot, but you are not at all an experienced pilot. You have demonstrated the minimum skill set to pass the test.
Following my first scare (weather related) with a very fresh PPL my examiner said much the same thing. "We can teach you to fly but we can't give you experience. You have to get that yourself!"

[jjoe]

SSD WROTE:

No, not really. Alien to me, that was.

I came to GA with my eyes open. I'd done gliding in the late '70s (a bit - 'till I got pissed off driving tractors and pulling private owner gliders around for a few precious minutes in the air). I'd spent 3 full weekends, 07:00 to 19:00 each day, before I even got into a cockpit! Thanks a bunch, D&L! (It WAS a long time ago!).

So I went to Barton in 1978 for a PPL determined not to be pissed around again. Made that clear, in the crowded clubhouse one wet Sunday afternoon after calling in to Barton, to the chairman of LAC. He promised me they would not piss me about as D&L had done.


So it did ring bells but it was better second time around at a good school once you'd been bitten, by your own admission? Not quite the same, is it?

Truth is, all schools DO NOT carry out what they promised and the GA scene has shrunk incredibly since the '70's ie less competition etc. so 'screwing the incumbents' will be more prevalent:
Loyalty costs.

[Pace]

Pilot Dar

I would also add that taking any risk decision might be ok for ourselves as its to a certain extent our choice. Flying a single at night cross country, flying over water, flying IMC with a cloud base almost to the ground in a single etc.

When we carry PAX especially non aviation minded PAX there is an extra level of responsibility in the fact that we are risking them too.
Maybe not our right to do so?

i can remember getting a shiny new PPL in my 20s and taking a pretty 19 year old up for a flight. The Top Gun image sporting a pair of Raybans and a leather jacket to impress her with my top gun flying abilities which were FAR off from top gun but more green novice and totally inexperienced.

Maybe had I had to carry a big L plate on the back the illusion I was portraying to this girl would have shattered as somehow Ray Bans, leather jackets, top gun Image and L plates don't go :E

Throughout flying we are taking risks and carrying unknowing PAX we must remember that we are taking risk decisions for those PAX and maybe we don't have a right to do so?

As A fresh PPL we should say to the PAX that we are novice PPLs with little experience and do they still want to come on a flight? At least then they make an informed decision.

Further in our flying we should also make our PAX aware of any elements of extra risk as they have to be part of that decision making? So we should for instance explain the risks of a water crossing as well as the procedures involved in ditching and keep the PAX as involved in any risk decisions as possible and not just take them on the ride of their life, good, bad or indifferent.

I know there is always a balancing act of not alarming PAX with risk decisions which only we should make for them as Sky Gods but maybe in many cases they have a right to be alarmed ?

Pace

[foxmoth]

Jjoe, not sure where you learnt, certainly sounds like you had a bad experience!
I have taught at a number of schools over the years, good bad and indifferent, even the bad one, run by a real shark, did not "screw the incumbents",though that one did push through one guy who should not really have been allowed near an aircraft, he had the ability but wrong mental attitude, but generally even there the students were dealt with in a professional manner and I would say the schools that do screw students are very much in the minority.:bored:

[Capot]

Hey Pace, you are a PPL, not a professional pilot, and the people who can be persuaded to ride with you are not "PAX", they are your friends.

"PAX" is industry jargon, a hangover derived from telex days when the fewer letters the better when sending reports on AFTN from the handling office, (....aaah, the olden days....) for paying passengers on a commercial flight. I'm sure you know this.

But there's something about your posts which prompts me to point it out!

[Big Pistons Forever]

Every PPL and CPL student I have recommended for a flight test in 28 years of full and part time instructing has passed their test on the first attempt.

It is the instructors job to make sure that the student has the skills and knowledge to safely fly an airplane.

With respect to the original posts, my thought is it has to be a wind up. The situation described is so far from normal flying instructing general practice that it makes no sense.

In any case, if true the good news is that no student could pass a flight test operating the way this student is, so he will never get licensed

[Pace]

Capot

I am a professional pilot ;) Who says they are your friends? You may take a deadly enemy for a flight or may use your aircraft for business and pleasure so may carry employees :E

PAX is a term commonly used today in the circles I mix in I could use passengers if it sounds better ?

Pace

[Maoraigh1]

The OP didn't say how long the student had taken to do 45 hours. A few long breaks, where the log book still has the hours, but the brain has lost the motor skills, and only has uncertain recollection of procedures, would explain it at any school. The use of the electronics in the circuit is strange, but some Instructor might have suggested it as a ground homework aid to learn the circuit - and been misunderstood.
(Not an instructor, but 43 years teaching teenagers gave me a few weird interpretations of what colleagues had said - and of what I had said.)

[Capot]

Pace... I take it all back, with apologies....leaping to conclusions again. It's that word PAX that triggered it; I've disliked it throughout my career, but that's my problem, not yours! It has always seemed to me somehow to dehumanise our customers the passengers, and hints at the contempt for the customers that is sometimes not far below the surface in our industry.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

PAX ... has always seemed to me somehow to dehumanise our customers the passengers
Are you sure you're not thinking of "SLF" rather than "PAX"?

I can't see how "PAX" for "passengers" is any more offensive than "WX" for "weather" or any other technical abbreviation.

[India Four Two]

PAX is now the almost ubiquitous term in the Far East for any kind of booking, not just transportation. I often see it used in hotel and restaurant reservations.

[Pace]

Capot

No apology needed )) I used PAX seven times and I can see to someone who doesn't like it 7 PAXs must be quite jarring :E

Passengers has 10 letters to write so 70 letters while PAX has 3 ) or 21 in total saving writing 49 letters ) quite a saving ?

Every industry uses abbreviation don't know what abbreviation could be more friendly ;) ? KIS )

Pace

[Discorde]

PAX is a term commonly used today . . . Pace

'Pax' is the Latin word for 'peace'. Its ablative case is 'pace' (pronounced 'parkay' or 'parchay'), meaning 'by or with peace'. In English the Latin word 'pace' also means 'with respect to'. The likely pronunciation in Roman times (contd p94)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

(pronounced 'parkay' or 'parchay')
... depending on whether your Latin teacher went to Oxford or Cambridge ...

[Pace]

Pace also originated from Roman times as a measurement of a marching step and then to reflect motion either fast or slow such as a fast pace of life or he paced up and down the room, or a pace car in motor racing.

So agreed PACE means peace but my mantle originated from the corny ACE :E
p_ace and shortened to pace but happy with the above descriptions too :ok:

But going way off topic and all because of PAX :{

Pace

[mary meagher]

Whatever!

All you Latin Scholars, Dona nobis pacem!

And a Merry Christmas to ATPLs, CPLs, PPLs, and even the lowly SLF! may your seats be wide and the waiting brief, and be not led into temptation in the shopping precincts....

Feliz Noel!

[flybymike]

Where do I obtain a waiting brief? ;)

[jjoe]

Where do I obtain a waiting brief?

If you are late for your appointment at court, you'll find him/her at the top of the stairs looking non-too-chuffed!:eek:

Merry Chrimbo all. (That's NOT latin!- or is it?)

JJOE.

[Pace]

may your seats be wide and the waiting brief

Thought briefs were small pants/knickers and if you need wide seats? the mind boggles :E That is the problem with the English language the same words mean different things :ok:
Mary not referring to you but a jovial Santa :ok: This thread going crazy

Pace

[ChickenHouse]

What a Vanity Fair this thread has gone ... It appears there are a lot of different worlds showcased and not every seem to be based on current reality.

My end of the story: after internal review with the FIs training the student and the schools owner, there was a serious chat with the student. Result is, the school cancelled his articles of apprenticeship. Unfortunately, they still have not found a way to manage the grandchilds of "everybody can do everything if only let" and helplessness is all around. Ooh, we had a printout of this thread on the table upon review and were amazed how far people tend to blame us without even knowing an itzy bit of background facts. I took my consequences now and retired from teaching. I am too old to deal with this part of the new generation, feeling there are too many illcompromised, and leave teaching to people with a different temper. There are times one has to part and I am now the dinosaur simply enjoying the rest of my life.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Is this thread a portal into some strange alternate reality, possibly one being authored by an aeronautical David Nobbs?

A school which accepted a pilot as a professional pilot apprentice, gets them to 45 hours without a basic grasp of flying norms, has an instructor so emotionally affected by one bad hour with a student that he refuses to fly for the rest of the day then retires because of it, not to mention a school which takes an anonymous internet thread as part of the decision making process in terminating a student - who didn't contribute to the thread.

Either this is a work of surrealist fiction, or the school needs shutting down quickly before it does any more damage.

G

[jjoe]

'Chicken-......'

Ooh, we had a printout of this thread on the table upon review and were amazed how far people tend to blame us without even knowing an itzy bit of background facts. I took my consequences now and retired from teaching. I am too old to deal with this part of the new generation, feeling there are too many illcompromised, and leave teaching to people with a different temper.

Oh you poor thing!

You tried to prepare him for a test 'without even knowing an itzy bit of background facts'!:eek::ugh:


Genghis wrote:
Is this thread a portal into some strange alternate reality, possibly one being authored by an aeronautical David Nobbs?

A school which accepted a pilot as a professional pilot apprentice, gets them to 45 hours without a basic grasp of flying norms, has an instructor so emotionally affected by one bad hour with a student that he refuses to fly for the rest of the day then retires because of it, not to mention a school which takes an anonymous internet thread as part of the decision making process in terminating a student - who didn't contribute to the thread.

Either this is a work of surrealist fiction, or the school needs shutting down quickly before it does any more damage.



Hear, Hear!
JJOE

[Pace]

The facts are there are many personality types who fly and many reasons that people take up flying
We even had a poster who took up flying to get over a fear of flying
The best reasons are a love of flying and I am sure even the vast majority of professional pilots wouldn't do it if they didn't deep down love flying
We all get days when we question why we do this but for most the driving force is a passion for what we do PPL or commercial

Then there are the others

Those who fly for some sort of ego trip
Some who fly because their parents did
Some as some sort of escapism
The list goes on some fly for good reasons others not so good and a few are a danger to themselves and others but they are normally noticed and either weed themselves out or are weeded out
But that's life and I too would be surprised that an instructor coming across such a character would chuck it in over the experience

Pace

[foxmoth]

and were amazed how far people tend to blame us without even knowing an itzy bit of background facts.

Sorry but no sympathy from me - you started this thread and the facts we have are the ones you gave us!

[9 lives]

after internal review with the FIs training the student and the schools owner, there was a serious chat with the student. Result is, the school cancelled his articles of apprenticeship.

In isolation, this seems like a good approach to me. There is a situation which is not acceptable to all parties, so all parties discuss it. The outcome may not be to everyone's liking, but the responsible party (the school) did what is must to assure some kind of uniformity of pilot skill and behaviour. Or, more simply stated, decided that "this pilot cannot be trained to an acceptable standard in an acceptable timeframe, so we no long offer that service". It sounds like the student had the opportunity to "see things the school's way", and it would seem that did not happen to the satisfaction of the school.

I look upon four decades of flying, and see what is now (and what I think is being lost). I have kids who can make my Iphone/Ipad do things I could not imagine possible - but I can make a plane do things the phone/tablet could not imagine! YOU, the pilots to be, must eagerly seek out the old way of doing things, to assure that while you're learning all the tech, do also learn to fly a plane. Your Ipad CANNOT tell you which pedal to push, quickly enough to prevent the taildragger from groundlooping! The old grey haired instructor, who can't figure their Iphone out does have the pedals figured out, and can teach it! Don't loose that opportunity!

[Sillert,V.I.]

The old grey haired instructor, who can't figure their Iphone out does have the pedals figured out, and can teach it! Don't loose that opportunity!

+1

Sadly, I suspect such gentlemen are a dying breed.

My two grey-haired PPL instructors had at least 20,000hrs each and the chap who sent me solo had previously flown a spitfire in combat. That such folk were prepared to teach an ab-initio student, unpaid, was to me an indication of their commitment to aviation and I did all I could to learn as much from the opportunity as I was able.

I have no doubt whatsoever that their combined training saved my life on more than one occasion, but where are the PPL's of tomorrow going to find such instruction?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Those instructors still exist (okay, maybe not the ones who flew Spitfires in combat). They're in the minority, but they exist.

What they rarely are nowadays is full time instructors.

There are out there people who have done a lot of very interesting aviation, and instruct - I can think within my acquaintance of a couple of test pilots, a former airline pilot with 15k+ hours, somebody working outside aviation but who has thousands of hours that include meat bombing and private warbird flying, a couple of people who have competed internationally in aerobatics or in microlight competitions.

They're there - not usually working full time teaching new PPL students, but they're there.

G

[Sillert,V.I.]

They weren't full time in the 1980's, either.

Seek out these guys if you can. It's well worth rearranging your schedule to fly with them.

[jjoe]

They weren't full time in the 1980's, either.

Seek out these guys if you can. It's well worth rearranging your schedule to fly with them.:ok:

I would rearrange anything to!

Unless I've misunderstood the EASA, and other, changes, is it not so that ALL instructors must now be under the wing of an ATO or other such beast and that these fabulous assets to aviation would have to kow-tow to the policies of such 'schools' and are therefore potentially doomed to the sidelines?

They've essentially had their wings clipped so there will fewer available as standalone instructors without going/having gone down the route of registering as an ATO etc. with all the (relative) hassle/cost that has created.

How, then, would you legally be able to use their experience and log it?
Would love to know the prevalence/incidence/consequences of these developments.

[Genghis the Engineer]

That's not true - only instructing for issue of licences and ratings.

People doing biennials, differences training (tailwheel,retracts, microlight...), currency checks or syndicate checkouts aren't required to work under an ATO.


At the same time, most instructors - even if they are largely freelancers - have a relationship with an ATO or equivalent that they can and often do function within for legal purposes.

So it's really not as bad as you fear.

G

[foxmoth]

I do much as Ghengis says, but also, like others instruct under the LAA coaching scheme.

[Pilot DAR]

They've essentially had their wings clipped

Bear in mind, that nothing prevents a licensed pilot from "arranging" for some mentoring from a more experienced pilot of their choosing. A mentor pilot does not need to be an instructor, as long as the "candidate" pilot is licensed for the aircraft they are flying together. Even for the 200 PPL, there is a lot which a mentor pilot can teach in the modest 150/152/172/PA28.

[flybymike]

EASA are currently running a consultation to enable single instructors to operate as a "Basic training organisation" which, if implemented, will do much to remove the hassle of an ATO umbrella.
http://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/notices-of-proposed-amendment

[Reverserbucket]

Is this thread a portal into some strange alternate reality?

I wondered that reading the first post - and surely this would have been more appropriate in Instructors and Examiners, but never mind.

There are a couple of observations I'd like to make: attitude counts for everything; some people simply cannot or will not be taught - meaning that they refuse to accept advice or guidance in any form, regardless of who is teaching, and secondly, that as a professional, does an instructor not have a responsibility borne out of a duty of care and personal integrity to stop any student who is not progressing, for any reason and seek guidance? Regardless of any contractual obligations you may have to an employer (ATO), surely personal integrity must be paramount?

That said, I have encountered exactly the same in professional pilot training at leading schools in recent years; I recall reading a comment in a training record one day that said "This student has no place in the cockpit of an aircraft, and the continuance of 'xyz's' training does both a disservice to the individual and the training provider". The student had logged over 45 hours dual without reaching a safe standard for first solo and had flown with multiple instructors (all of whom reported similarly) at the insistence of the CFI. To have stopped the student's training would have resulted in a refund through the school's 'skills protection plan' and that simply wasn't acceptable, we were told.

Another, a couple of years later, that could not maintain straight and level for more than a few seconds before falling into some form of unconscious like state where the instructor was unable to communicate or focus the students attention thereby necessitating a take over of control and return to the airfield. Clearly there was a problem and AME guidance was sought. The student returned to training after a period of evaluation (despite a suggestion of vacant epilepsy), with a recommendation for a period of dual monitoring before any solo(!).

Both students finished their training...both now fly for Ryanair.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

When you read posts like the above you realise how AF447 and Buffalo might have come about...

It's born out by a friend of mine who now runs a commercial pilot school. He told me has students who just should not be anywhere near the sharp end of an aeroplane.

[rnzoli]

And how come these students eventually pass all tests required to fly as a First Officer for major airlines? Ryanair, Wizzair... and nowadays basically all airlines are in need of "cheap" pilots, who can fund their own training, but what's their battle plan to avert a disaster? Do they trust that the automated airplane will always bring them home? Or that a more senior captain will bring them home in case the flight computers are misbehaving? Or that they eventually learn flying the big jets anyway?


I am asking because airlines, unlike commercial flight schools, don't owe anything to the poorly skilled ATLP applicants, so they could just as well reject them, without any financial consequences.
I must be missing some part of the logic here.

[Reverserbucket]

Ultimately rnzoli, I believe it to be a combination of supply and demand, apparently weak or underperforming trainees 'getting better' or rather improving their skill set with continuous and concentrated repetition, and the fact that there is (as I was told early on by a senior colleague) a certain degree of protection in a multi-crew environment. To give you an impression of one or two of my experiences, I was told by a candidate on a single-engine test when informed during the debrief that they hadn't made the PFL field they selected, or the one beyond it or the one beyond that and had not been successful with the VFR Navigation section of the test: "I'm training to be an airline pilot - you don't do engine failures into fields in airliner's and they've got GPS for navigation." The last comment highlighted a fundamental lack of understanding of basic navigation principals in modern commercial aircraft, perhaps all the more surprising in view of the fourteen ATPL Theoretical Knowledge Examination passes this candidate held. Regardless, a satisfactory standard was eventually reached and this lucky young spark now flies CAT category aircraft in EU airspace - and beyond.

And I could go on, but in my experience, it wasn't always the case. There have always been weak students but I have encountered far more in the last 15 years and most with a sense of entitlement that I find increasingly discouraging. You mentioned two operators in your post; a former colleague told me recently that they have had requests for recent or almost completed students to be proposed for interview with an operator. In general, graduates who had progressed well through training, had an amenable personality and positive attitude, were rejected. Those that had not performed so well, and had not made much of an impression on the staff were accepted. You can make of that what you will I suppose.

[rnzoli]

Thanks, this makes more sense to me now.

"I'm training to be an airline pilot - you don't do engine failures into fields in airliner's "
Well, that seems to be true :) often rivers (Hudson), islands (Azores), and some old and closdr runways (Gimli) are more probable landing sites after all-engine failures, not fields. :}

perhaps all the more surprising in view of the fourteen ATPL Theoretical Knowledge Examination passes
Here is what I recently saw as an ATPL aspirant was advising for others: "forget studying for the tests, it's a waste of time, you will never use that knowledge again. Just buy xyz publisher's service for preparatory tests and do the tests over and over again until you reach sufficiently high scores. Don't think, just memorize what is the right answer for each question."


There have always been weak students but I have encountered far more in the last 15 years and most with a sense of entitlement that I find increasingly discouraging. I guess this has to do with the training costs shifted to the candidates and the onset of "I, the candiate pay tons of money for this, so you better deliver your promise and shut up."

Those that had not performed so well, and had not made much of an impression on the staff were accepted. You can make of that what you will I suppose.Yes, it's clear. A barely performing pilot is easier to keep in the low wage ranges, he/she will be happy just to stay on the job, and will never ask for a raise, and will always be very loyal to his/her employer. At the same time, the low-cost airlines are still as safe as the tradional national flag carriers, and this may be an ample testimony to Fly-by-wire and other fancy automation.

Maybe what we are seeing here is the ripple effect from the onset of automation, where the skills of the proverbial dog, not allowing the pilot to touch anything, will be more important that the pilot skills. If the industry is really heading towards unmanned / single pilot operation combined with remote flight controls, soon we will see programmers, cooks, fashion designers, travel fans and other unusual type of people in "pilot seats" of fully automated airplanes. We will beg for the return of our current candidates, who only have degraded will to learn flying, instead of cadidates, who will be completely inept at learning and still making it through the front windows, because they can push the start/stop/left/right/up/down buttons for the lowest wages, or even paying for that priviledge themselves. At some distant point in time, even priviledged passenger could do that, who pays extra for the front window seat :)

[Pilot DAR]

Don't think, just memorize what is the right answer for each question."

Well, at least you can be confident about their memorizing the required V speeds, and emergency checklist items!

[rnzoli]

Well, at least you can be confident about their memorizing the required V speeds, and emergency checklist items!
Sure enough, this includes accepting and memorizing the glaringly wrong dry (no fuel) V speeds, that give you a sure tailstrike....

[abgd]

"forget studying for the tests, it's a waste of time, you will never use that knowledge again. Just buy xyz publisher's service for preparatory tests and do the tests over and over again until you reach sufficiently high scores. Don't think, just memorize what is the right answer for each question."

If sufficiently good databases exist, it may be that trying to learn the material without also memorising the questions doesn't get you competitive scores... even if you know the syllabus well.

[Romeo Tango]

forget studying for the tests, it's a waste of time, you will never use that knowledge again. Just buy xyz publisher's service for preparatory tests and do the tests over and over again until you reach sufficiently high scores. Don't think, just memorize what is the right answer for each question.

This sounds bad but remember the micromanaging system of rules that flying (especially commercial flying) now runs on. If a rule based system is insisted upon you have to expect pilots to learn the "correct" answers by heart rather than thinking of the best thing to do at the time. Not always the same.

[Pace]

I can remember studying the FAA papers for the ATP and then going to a specialist company in the USA who literally brainwashed you to pass. A month later you forgot most :E its all about ticking boxes

Pace

[rnzoli]

This sounds bad but remember the micromanaging system of rules that flying (especially commercial flying) now runs on. If a rule based system is insisted upon you have to expect pilots to learn the "correct" answers by heart rather than thinking of the best thing to do at the time. Not always the same.

But human memory fades and if not tickled regularly with challenges, we all forget the tickbox exercise. Computers are far more consistent at following rule-based systems and this way they slowly, but surely, take over the ordinary pilot jobs in scheduled air traffic scenarios. The nasty side-effect is that these computers are rendering today's pilots redundant and pushing them down on the capability curve. So when trouble strikes and computers are unable to cope for some reason, it is becoming more and more likely that pilots can't cope either. AF447, QZ8501, French aircraft, French pilots at the controls, flying the aircraft into the ocean - it's more than just coincidence.

WIth the unstoppable advance of automation, we will soon have to make up our minds: either we continue to believe that ATPs have to be top talents and then raise the training requirements significantly again, onto the level of test pilots, OR we start degrading the requirements into "Light" ATPL for flying push-button aircraft only, with autoland features etc. Some of the pilots already aim for this spot apparently, according to the OP.

A similar transformation will take place in driver licenses issuance. With the advance of Google-cars etc. People in them will be only passengers, even if they sit at the front window. So is there any reason to give them the same training as we give to drivers for ordinary cars? Will they be interested to learn anything about driving, when they know they will own a super-smart automatic car? Nope, I am sure their will to learn parking manouvers will be ..."degraded"...

[Big Pistons Forever]

It would seem to me that the large number of ATPL exams filled with aeronautical trivia, function only as a barrier to entry.

Canada and the US have much less onerous theoretical exam procedures, yet an overall slightly better safety record than European Airlines.

Finally if the stuff on the European exams was so important to know inorder to be a safe airline pilot, why does every European ATPL I know tell me that if they were forced to rewrite the exam they would have to do the entire study course over again if they were to have any hope of being successful.

In contrast I am quite confident I could write the Canadian ATPL exams tomorrow and pass them.

[Romeo Tango]

I suppose the trend of crashes caused by tired/forgetful pilots versus the accidents caused by "special circumstances" catching out computers will crossover sometime soon (if it has not done so already). Then most of the pilots can be sacked and the flying can be done by rule based software. Maybe backed up by a few real pilots in an office who can manage most of the unusual circumstances by remote control.
The bureaucrats will love this - they can then invent as many rules as they like until aircraft become illegal.

[rnzoli]

The bureaucrats will love this - they can then invent as many rules as they like until aircraft become illegal.
Aircraft probably not, but manual piloting could be banned! There are already calls for making Google-cars not only permitted in the future, but mandatory whereever possible, to increase safety on the roads. Same will happen for scheduled air traffic within 50 years from now.

But is this really a problem, or just a natural signal, that the field of aviation has matured enough by now, therefore mankind's top talent should move onto something else more challenging again? E.g., space exploration, mission to Mars and the like?

[ChickenHouse]

But is this really a problem, or just a natural signal, that the field of aviation has matured enough by now, therefore mankind's top talent should move onto something else more challenging again? E.g., space exploration, mission to Mars and the like?
In principle correct, but if mankind would have had todays attitude before, we would not have made it off the tree, or maybe even out of the oceans. Top talents nowadays are shot at, not nurtured to expertise and elite. In rat experiments they call it density stress, resulting i.e. in cannibalism, and with nowadays bars and cages, mentally and physical, we are on a similar track. From experience of the last decades, I doubt we overcome this without a major war of some kind. Mankind does have a bad reputation for learning without real pain and disaster.

[Romeo Tango]

mankind's top talent should move onto something else more challenging again? E.g., space exploration, mission to Mars and the like?

Unfortunately much of our top talent seems to end up in the financial industry where they try to find a clever ways of screwing money out of the other clever people in the city and/or careless/stupid people in the general population. ie NOT progressing humanity.

.... though they do keep the grand houses in the home counties in good repair.

[rnzoli]

CH, do I hear the classic "older generations were far better than the current and new generation" complaint? :) Although every generation states the same due to the progress of mankind, it is actually not true, new generations are different, because they can and will surely rely of achievements of earlier generations, instead of re-inventing stuff all over again. Its unfair to criticise younger generations only because they have an easier life, since the fundamentals for that easier life were laid down by the older generation.

if mankind would have had todays attitude before There is not one monolithic attitude, but quite many different ones. There were mediocre and also very talented individuals during the entire history of mankind. We are cheating ourselves, if we pick talented people from the past to compare with mediocre people from present times. Older people feel the influx of medocracy in their fields (e.g., music), often because the various aids (e.g., synthesizers, auto-tuners) make it easier for ordinary people to achieve what was only possible for experts before. This is why top talent needs to migrate to new areas constantly or expand the borders of their current area of expertise.

Top talents nowadays are shot at, not nurtured to expertise and elite. Due to jeolousy, this has always been the case. Whenever there was a bright mind around, there were immediately mediocre individuals, who felt the need to attack them as soon as possible. (Just think of Galileo Galilei and his discoveries..).

Mankind does have a bad reputation for learning without real pain and disaster.I agree on that. Given the extremely well documented wars in the past, and the horrible consequences, I am amazed how many people cheer wars and war propaganda. But a good sign for me is that there is still a surprisingly strong interest in WW1 and WW2 in new generations (from the smarter end of society of course), and guess what is helping this? Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, PC simulator games.... in addition to the traditional books, memoirs, scientific articles.

[9 lives]

This is why top talent needs to migrate to new areas constantly or expand the borders of their current area of expertise.

Except when it comes to the basics of hand flying a plane. If the "top talent" would like to hire this out to a person with good piloting skills, and not touch the controls themselves, that's fine. But if that person wants to fly the plane themselves, there are some skills to be mastered, and they are now century old skills which really have not changed.

We must be able to maintain adequate flying speed for the G we would like to fly (usually 1), and be able to do that with a minimum of systems assistance, anticipating common failures. We must be able to arrest our descent rate when approaching the ground, and keep the plane straight along the landing path. And, the other basic handling, navigation, and lookout skills needed to assure a safe flight.

There are some aids to these tasks, but it is fair and appropriate that an examiner "fail" such systems to assure the pilot can complete the task on their skills alone.

Aviation has developed some good advancements, which have become so mainstream that certain skills become very rare, and arguably no longer needed for flying common modern aircraft. Starter motors fit this description. Hand propping is no longer an element of PPL training. But automation for light aircraft will never reach the level of reliability required that the certified plane can take all non pilot occupants for a flight in controlled airspace, at a cost bearable by the average light aircraft owner. When we start seeing pilotless airliners, that evolution has begun, but the light aircraft won't be able to depend upon those systems for a number of reasons.

I think Ipads and similar new technology are great, and as I learn those new skills, I appreciate being able to search a database, or select "last" or "invert" to save leafing through pages of paper... But, I can still find my way home with only a VOR, or an ADF, or a chart, and I can still glide a taildragger onto the surface with a decent landing in a crosswind. Once I'm established in the downwind, all the techy toys will be put away, and it'll just be me and the plane.

Hands on piloting skill cannot be replaced by tech, only aided in some phases of flight.

[Pace]

WIth the unstoppable advance of automation, we will soon have to make up our minds: either we continue to believe that ATPs have to be top talents and then raise the training requirements significantly again, onto the level of test pilots, OR we start degrading the requirements into "Light" ATPL for flying push-button aircraft only, with autoland features etc. Some of the pilots already aim for this spot apparently, according to the OP.

I love the confidence placed on automation and computers in this thread and hence the new breed of push button pilots

I know even on highly automated aircraft like the A320 the pilots spend half their time resetting circuit breakers and my own experience is that the automation will let you down at the worst possible time.
do not rely on autopilots or the vast array of pilot aids and computers to help you as only a fool would trust them with his/her life

The Lear 45 has 21 computers which regularly go wrong and cost a fortune to replace.
When these things go wrong like when flying in Berlin with minima RVR and 200 feet cloud base with bad icing I had a complete autopilot and flight director failure ! What are you left with? Hand flying and you should even in a high powered jet be able to hand fly it as accurately as the autopilot.

I never see a time when automation will take over as no automation will ever take over some of the system failures which require multiple actions and none will cover the system failures of its own systems

There have been enough warning accidents by button pushers where the authorities are now bringing back basic handling skills into the training

i see a reverse in training back to basic flying and handling skills and more on upset handling rather than a continuation to more and more button pushing pilots which is showing not to work

Pace

[thing]

Interesting posts on this topic. I haven't much to add other than shouldn't an aspiring pilot student take pride in being able to navigate with a stopwatch and chart? Why do people learn how to sail yachts, why don't they just buy motorboats? Surely it's about being able to employ the esoteric and antiquated skills we learn as pilots?

Sure I have a GPS but it's only there as another aid, in the same way as I will switch on the VOR and ADF even in crystal clear weather flying a local milk run. If they are in the aircraft why not have it switched on? But I sure as hell know that I wouldn't get lost if I was left with just Mk1 eyeball and a map, because I enjoy using them when I occasionally do a 'no aids' trip to some place I haven't been before, just for the hell of it. Isn't that part of the enjoyment of private flying or am I just being a bit weird?

[rnzoli]

But automation for light aircraft will never reach the level of reliability required that the certified plane can take all non pilot occupants for a flight in controlled airspace, at a cost bearable by the average light aircraft owner.100% agree. Private flying for pleasure will remain the main area of hand-flying. A little bit like oldtimer cars these days (there is so limited fun factor in modern cars).

[rnzoli]

automation will let you down at the worst possible time.
do not rely on autopilots or the vast array of pilot aids and computers to help you as only a fool would trust them with his/her life
No news, everything tends to fail under high-stress conditions, when you need it most. Humans too! Neither technology nor humans are fail-safe, so the question is where is the cross-over point in safety. Due to the disappointingly poor human performance in recent tragedies point out how many victims also trusted these poorly performing pilots, incapable of solving basic flying challengers under perceived (not real!) stress.

I never see a time when automation will take over as no automation will ever take over some of the system failures which require multiple actions and none will cover the system failures of its own systems
Perhaps you don't see ahead long enough? :) With srinking size of electronics, designers can stuff far more comupters on-board. Yes, this increases the failure probability of individual units, but this also provides "majority-choice" (1 out of 3, 1 out of 5) protection, with computers running even different versions of software to reduce risks of single-point-of-failure in the software.
i see a reverse in training back to basic flying and handling skills and more on upset handling rather than a continuation to more and more button pushing pilots which is showing not to work This is the alternative strategy where we rather need good troubleshooters on the level of test pilots in the cockpit. Might also work, but I am afraid it will be more costly than getting technology safer. It's a competition for avoiding the crossover point.

[foxmoth]

All this talk of automation - why do these people bother learning to fly, to me they may as well just get someone else to do the flying while they sit in the back reading the newspaper!

[rnzoli]

I am not sure either, here is a couple of no-thrill guesses, why someone would try to get a pilot license without trying to learn to fly:

- money - commercial pilot jobs pay well compared to other industries and the scene lends itself to entry barriers shifting to investment rather than airmanship capabilities

- parental pressure - your dad was a pilot, your granddad was a pilot, your aunt is still a pilot, so you obvouisly MUST become a pilot too

- showing off - you did everthing from parachute jumping to scuba diving and your friends also did that, so now it's time to show off with something they can't afford

There are some other rare possibilities too, such as would-be terrorists or individuals with suicidal tendencies - unlikely, but happened before.

Did I miss any other plausible reason?

[Pace]

such as would-be terrorists or individuals with suicidal tendencies

With such a clever automated aircraft I am sure it will be able to smell out potential terrorists or those with suicidal tendencies and either refuse to start or it would eject the potential terrorist enroute and carry on on its merry way to a landing at destination on its own :ok:
Quite easy voice recognition and a simple lie detector technology :ok::ok::ok:

Pace

[Romeo Tango]

I don't think you can say that because automation has been unreliable in the past it always will be unreliable.

The fact is electronics (as well as mechanical stuff) is getting more reliable quite quickly - compare a current iPad to a PC of 20 years ago. Compare a car of 1980 to 2015. More and more stuff just works and one is now quite surprised if they don't. Plenty of exceptions, but they are getting fewer.

Building a robot aircraft that can fly passengers reliably is perhaps limited more by passenger perceptions than anything else. If not it soon will be.

[Pace]

RT

As in all things in aviation all is fine until its not fine. Flying is fairly easy until things go wrong in either mechanics or weather or both.
How will automation ever fully handle an engine failure or an engine failure with an engine fire or a battery overheat, complete electrical failure or a multitude of multiple failures.
How would automation deal with severe weather? violent windshear extreme crosswinds, severe icing or even navigating through a wall of cells?
It is too simplistic to get an aircraft to fly automatically with mechanical and weather limits. real life is not like that

Pace

[rifruffian]

how would automation deal with severe weather?.....ah,yes pace.....reminds me that automation might not do worse than the human input.
Was my misfortune to be in an aircraft confronted with a tropical thunderstorm that had been forecast and was clearly visible; pilot was CPL transporting senior management.. Despite the possibilities to delay departure, or turn back, or fly around......we went straight through.
But this is not the only pilot in command in the world who would make the same decision. Even with the best training, some people just do not have good quality of judgement

[Pace]

But that is my very point )) until they develop a thinking computer / robot which can not only look at radar returns but analyse visually the clouds and find a way through looking at both automation will be limited
It is the experience and knowledge of the pilot in dealing with multiple problems and I can think of a few myself which could never be handled by a computer
Automation will have a place as a pilot assist not as a pilot replace
I am sorry you had that experience entering a CB but that is the pilots mistake as was the incorrect recovery techniques employed in an airline which crashed moving the FAA to steer away from automatics and insist pilots spent more time in hand flying and upset handling

Pace

[Romeo Tango]

For a robot aircraft to work I am assuming the environment is even more controlled than now, and "special situations" like mechanical failure are less frequent.

As I said before this is all about the relation between imperfect humans and imperfect robots. The robots are getting better, the humans are not.

I would expect that a full autonomy robot would be able to deal with an extreme crosswind better than a human (much quicker reactions, better information on position/accelerations/rates than a human eye/inner ear). In the landing situation is there anything that a human pilot knows that a robot cannot?

Again with engine failure/battery overheat what does a human know about what is happening to the aircraft that the robot does not? The days of looking at the colour of smoke from a burning engine are past.

In very extreme situations like total engine failure maybe a human might be better at choosing a field to crash into but the track record of humans pulling this sort of thing off in multi engine jets is not too good either.

Computers do not work very well without electricity ... but humans don't work well without oxygen so we have backup O2 for pilots, I would assume there would be backup power for the computer.

As to dodging lines of cells the robot would have full information from ground radar as well as radar in the aircraft. I agree there is the visual picture as well but I would expect a human to hold the robots hand from the ground for a few minutes while dealing with unusual weather.

I would expect the robot to fall back on asking a human if it gets a special situation.

[Pace]

I presume the Robot won't be physically handling the controls ? So any computer input would have to be through the autopilot limited by the autopilot capability which is not great in strong crosswinds or wind shear!
The thinking computer is still very basic and if it was ever intelligent enough to deal with extreme weather then we should all worry ))

Pace

[Romeo Tango]

Well, no. If a robot is flying the plane it is flying the plane with full authority over the controls. There maybe a seat so a pilot can fly the machine ... but usually there will not be a pilot :)

I am not assuming a thinking computer (yet). I am assuming a rule based system for now ... but it can be quite a sophisticated set of rules. It seems to me that it is more difficult to make a robot car than a robot aircraft .... but the robot cars are coming already

[rnzoli]

autopilot capability which is not great in strong crosswinds or wind shear!
True, yet don't be misled by the design hierarchy of present-day aircraft. These days autopilots throw in the towel far too easy, not because of their low capabilities, but because of the design assumption, that an even mightier and far more capable human will take over afterwards. Unfortunately, there are more and more occasions, where autopilot disconnect finds only a crew unprepared to hand-fly the aircraft, resulting in an upset and in a few cases, a disaster for all on board. When new designs will take this experience into account, the autopilots will become more stubborn and hang on to a hard landing, just like humans do!

(Autopilots can work with all the senses humans have and even more. There is only one field where they are far too behind - creativity for the completely unexpected. That's why human space missions are still preferred over robotic missions.)

[Pace]

Even the remote controlled drones are operated by humans not computers in that sense.

I am no computer expert but all computers do is to hold data which gives a preprogrammed command which then is processed through a system like the autopilot or controls like in the airbus.

The pilot makes an input which the computer registers and sends a command rather than by a conventional control link.

this means that if an unexpected or excessive control in put is made the computer can override that input.

I think what you are talking about is intelligent computers which think for themselves? That is still in extreme infancy and very basic decision making has been demonstrated.

Whether we will ever get to the ski fi idea of thinking robots to anything like the level of a human being is another matter until then there will always be a human mind overseeing and being able to override the computers

Pace

[Romeo Tango]

For what it is worth I do know something about computers. I have written a lot of code over the last 40 years from basic assembler up to high level languages as well as designing the devices some of that code runs on.

I'm not saying I could build a reliable robot aircraft today but I would certainly know where to start.

I'm sure there are several teams who have already started, not intending to fly granny next year ... but they will be ready as the technology matures over the next few decades (years?).

As I implied before, in my opinion, the aviation environment is much more computer friendly than the public road (even if the consequences of an error in flying are bigger). The problems of driverless cars are being solved, I would expect pilotless passenger aircraft to be not that far behind.

[Pace]

RT

Even if what you say is correct and I am not in a position to say it would not be the type of flying that would interest me anymore than joe Bloggs wanting to go from A to B
Flying has always generated fears in passengers which are not there in cars even though you are far more likely to be killed in a car
I don't think passengers or PAX would accept one pilot never mind NO pilots and public confidence is everything regarding aviation
The impossible happens and the day a pilotless aircraft went down even for the most obscure change of events there would be a major spotlight on that accident which not even the Lubitz crash generated
The only way I could ever see pilotless aircraft becoming acceptable would be if a ballistic chute system was ever designed for airline size aircraft

I did see a program on intelligent computing and we are decades off that being a realistic and reliable development

Pace

[Pilot DAR]

It sounds like the will to learn to fly certainly could be suppressed with all this talk of automated GA flight. I guess it's a matter of what each person perceives in the term "fly".

For me, "fly" is to feel the sky in my hands, through the controls and then feel the brush of the grass on the wheels as I touch down. "Flying" is to touch the floats onto tiny wave crests on a deserted lake, to pull up to the beach for a picnic. "Flying" is to gaze upon beautiful landscapes with the door off, and have the time to fly a 360 for a second look if I want, or wheel about in gentle aerobatics. And, sometimes, "flying" is to go from A to B with reasonable speed, and not be hobbled by surface features and road traffic. I don't need any form of computer for any of that.

I will not surrender the pleasure of my flying to a computer, nor an autopilot - I want to enjoy it myself while in the air.

I once flew a friend's MS Flight Simulator. I could not feel the sky, nor the grass or water upon landing, feel the G's, nor see the mists. I did not enjoy it, and I did not do it again.

I'm here in the private flying forum to promote the very basic fun of actually taking responsibility for, and flying an aircraft. If prospective pilots are approaching aviation as an opportunity to use a computer as a primary element of flying - why go to the airport at all? It's about the tiny sensations in your hands and feel, as the control forces come and go, and the engine oil on your cuff, and grass stain on your knee.

If you want to feel, see, hear and smell aviation, you're going to have to have the will to learn it!

[Romeo Tango]

P & PD:
I agree with both of you. I'm not saying robot aircraft will be any fun .... just they are coming like it or not.

I expect there will always be a place for tiger moths and cubs but we may not be allowed to share airspace with passenger carrying drones. [Thinking about that I suppose drone aircraft may get quite good at dodging flying machines piloted by humans so we may be allowed to share ....]

In not very long it will be thought foolhardy to allow manual driving on public roads and soon after that it will be apparently stupid and dangerous to other road users. Again, I don't like that .... but that is the way our risk averse society is going.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

If all the cars, trucks, and buses are automated that'll make motorcycling a heck of a lot safer. :ok:

[Romeo Tango]

If motorcycles are allowed in this brave new automated world .....

[Pace]

Until these intelligent thinking computers decide they don't need these inferior stupid and imperfect masters called human beings and decide to eject you over the north Allantic :ok: or knock out a window to depressurise the aircraft which of course won't effect them )))

Intelligent Robots rule the world just as realistic a proposition ) mind you a sexy human like sex mad robot with perfect proportions you could switch off at will would really save a fortune on the bank balance and heartache )) far better idea than changing aircraft into Robot drive ))
Think they could be programmed never to nag and to tell you your beer belly is really sexy )

That is the whole point we fly for passion for a love of what we do computers have no passion no love no soul

Pace

[rifruffian]

I believe there is a huge segment of our world population who want to travel long distances and pay as little as possible. Many will hardly consider relative safety scenarios and will be entirely unconcerned as to whether an airplane is carrying pilots, or not.

[Capt Kremmen]

When a computer can assess, balance and manage risk, then we'll all be flying automated aircraft.

[rnzoli]

It's coming whether we like it or not...

It's already implemented in 1-dimensional traffic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems#Grade_of_Automa tion_4_Systems

It's progressing for 2-dimensional movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Predictions

And the 3-dimension variant (for commercial flying) will be here in less than another half century, perhaps coupled with optional remote control.

[Crash one]

Capt Kremmen

When a computer can assess, balance and manage risk, then we'll all be flying automated aircraft.


In the event that two aircraft are at risk and the sacrifice of one will ensure the survival of the other. What criteria will the computer use to decide? Commercial value of cargo or life?

[Pace]

I think the whole concept of pilotless computer controlled aircraft is crazy it just won't happen|

Just imagine the double flameout due to Multiple Bird strikes over Hudson how would a computer driven only passenger jet handle that ?

" Oh yes says the computer brain! double engine failure so I will select best glide ?
HMMM Big city below and i could take out thousands of people destroying multiple buildings as well as the 200 people on board?

Oh YES theres a nice straight river over there! I can do a water landing? must remember not to put the gear down! Must remember to stall it in tail first.
must not collide with any boats in my line of vision so lets go right a tad?

Ok we are down safely now I have to deal with a safe evacuation and as CAPTAIN COMPUTER I will be the last to vacate or go down with the ship with a hiss and a crackle :ugh::ugh::ugh:"

Get real guys :ok:

Pace

[flybymike]

Pilotless passenger capable aircraft have been around since at least just post war.
In 1946, eight B-17 Flying Fortresses were transformed by American airmen into drones for collecting radioactive data. They were controlled at takeoff and landing from a transmitter on a jeep
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles

[Genghis the Engineer]

I heard John Roberts, the Chief Engineer on the A380, asked this question - his answer was very similar to Pace's.

Basically he said that if you're flying standard routes between civilised countries with predictable weather - yes, automate away. Route into unstable countries, with unpredictable events on the ground and in the air, with possibly unpredicted oddball weather conditions - and he always wants to see a human being up the front making the difficult decisions, usually on the basis of incomplete information.

G

[rnzoli]

Let's agree to disagree. You nicely describe the steps taken for the successful ditching, these steps are equally applicable to all 100% loss-of-thrust situations and therefore these steps can be pre-programmed. The difference will be that a computer would use a short-range radar for obstacle avoidance, which, unlike the human eye, can see through the darkness and fog too.

A computer can also be progammed to take decisions in favor of minimizing loss of life (on-board/known and on-the-ground/estimated). It has no emotional bias, if needed, it will sacrifice 100 people to save another 200 in the blink of an eye.

On the other hand, maybe the the computers won't shut down the only operational engine, when the other one fails, which is a surprisingly difficult task for certain humans under pressure. A computer does not understand "pressure". It doesn't divorce. It doesn't have alcohol and drug problems. It doesn't get tired. It doesn't have workshift hour limits.

The biggest practical issue is who will request start-up clearence on the ground? Who will take decision regarding diverting due to sick or agressive passengers?Who will talk to the passengers en-route? The answer may be a the lead flight attendant, who is trained in using the radio from the cabin. So there will always be someone on board, representing the airline, but not necessarily able to hand-fly an airliner.

Finally, let's have a look at this for an eye opener - eSafe demonstrator:
8h7GmtwPXYM

[ChickenHouse]

Let's agree to disagree. You nicely describe the steps taken for the successful ditching, these steps are equally applicable to all 100% loss-of-thrust situations and therefore these steps can be pre-programmed. The difference will be that a computer would use a short-range radar for obstacle avoidance, which, unlike the human eye, can see through the darkness and fog too.

A computer can also be progammed to take decisions in favor of minimizing loss of life (on-board/known and on-the-ground/estimated). It has no emotional bias, if needed, it will sacrifice 100 people to save another 200 in the blink of an eye.
Thanks, this is why I fear for humankind.

No, it is not the old "the younger will ruin everything", it is exactly that emerging attitude towards pushing accountability to computers and gain the highest rank of human foolishness, non-responsibility. When I had my first secretary, she not once stood in front of me and apologized for doing a mistake. When she retired the second one never did a mistake, it was always "MS Word crashing". Humanity, responsibility and accountability were damaged and it still is.

Short-range radar does the technical trick in your example, not the computer. There is nothing wrong with the pilot using it, so no difference other than the responsibility kept at a human.

Decision taking is a very hot iron and lately even popped up in connection with automated driving. Yes, the computer does not have an emotional bias, but frankly, I want to live in a world with emotional bias, not cold blooded and cold hearted algorithms. Using statistics and Artificially Intelligence is a very common Golden Calf, but I prefer a human taking decisions, even if it does produce more fatalities in some case. It will safe more in another situation where the dump-headed programmer from Far Far Away was simply wrong. The solution to use technology advancing rapidly is quite simple, only let a human take control who understands what she/he is doing and is talented to perform, not push buttons only. Yes, this would cut i.e. the beloved holiday cattle flying to a minimum and prices for it will go through the roof, but so be it. Only do, what can be done and improve humans, not machines, first. Nowadays we tend to develop only machines and forget about the souls.

[robin]

Finally, let's have a look at this for an eye opener - eSafe demonstrator:

Oh dear.

And of course no-one will ever use this as an approach tool except in an emergency....

[abgd]

@Chickenhouse: I don't disagree, but you're going to have to argue better than that if you want to convince people to opt for a course that even you admit may be riskier and more expensive.

[DeltaV]

How did that DA42 auto-land know the pilot was out? What triggered the takeover?

And why did the weather radar swan it around these little clouds that even I, non IR, non IMC equipped could buzz through? A towering Cb all black with internal lighting, OK, but those little bitty fluffy things? Why'd it need to do that? I'd say that vid was edited by the marketing department.

[rnzoli]

Short-range radar does the technical trick in your example, not the computer. There is nothing wrong with the pilot using it, so no difference other than the responsibility kept at a human.
Not quite true. Yes, we can also use additional tools, like a short range radar, but we all remember the standing priority order "Aviate, navigate, communicate". This shows that we are prone to task saturatiion, like turning this radar on while fighting to restart the engines. Unlike humans, a computer has no problem to follow 2 checklists simultaneously.... one for re-lighting the engines, the other for ditching. So the more input/information we can provide to pilots / computer to make correct decisions, the better computers can perform against humans.

I want to live in a world with emotional bias, not cold blooded and cold hearted algorithms. I believe emotions are indispensible for art or sports, because it stimulates humans. On the other hand, emotions cloud professional decisions. Case in point: the emotional feeling of get-there-itis is a major killing factor in GA through poor decision making. Other professions are also trying to limit the effect of emotions on decisions. For example, if you have a medical doctor in your family, he/she is not supposed to operate on you, it has to be an independent team in the operating room, to make sure the right decisions are taken for your interest. For example, in an emergency situation, they might cut your leg to save your life, while your family member would try everything to save your leg and as a result, run out of time and lose you entirely.

I prefer a human taking decisions, even if it does produce more fatalities in some case. It will safe more in another situation where the dump-headed programmer from Far Far Away was simply wrong. It's a race between the two alternatives and recent accidents indicate that the humans tend to get worse. Regarding the Far Far Away programmer, any automated aircraft would have to undergo a Very Near Authority certification as well. Moreover the food and aviation industries are extremely good at tracking down the source of every apple or aircraft part / line of program code, so in case of troubles, it can be traced back and the responsible can be identified, recurrence can be stopped.

The solution to use technology advancing rapidly is quite simple, only let a human take control who understands what she/he is doing and is talented to perform, not push buttons only. Yes, this would cut i.e. the beloved holiday cattle flying to a minimum and prices for it will go through the roof, but so be it. Fair point, but people will vote with their purchasing power, as usual, price is a major factor and airline competition is cut-throat. No one will try to go back in time and raise ticket fares (very tangible) for the sake of increasing safety (very intangible).

My guess is that automation will anyway gradually sneak into aviation in this order:
1. Cargo flights: Human: pilot flying, Computer: pilot monitoring.
2. Cargo flights: Computer: pilot flying, Human: pilot monitoring.
3. Cargo flights: Computer: pilot flying, Human on the ground: remote pilot monitoring.
And then the same steps for passenger flights.
Whether we like it, or not.
Next 50 years.

[rnzoli]

Oh dear.

And of course no-one will ever use this as an approach tool except in an emergency....In the beginning, my dear, in the beginning. :)
It's not so hard to see that if this stuff saves a couple of lives, it will boost the public support / industry funding / academic research into automated solutions on an unprecedented scale. SO the time will come when the pilot is not completely passed out, but feels tired / unconcentrated / sick, so it will be very easy to press that "take me home now" button.

How did that DA42 auto-land know the pilot was out? What triggered the takeover?I am not sure, but probably the total lack of control inputs and total lack of communication. This is a technology demonstration, not a finished product, so I am not even sure this detection was part of the demonstration at this stage, or only the return to the home base was.

And why did the weather radar swan it around these little clouds that even I, non IR, non IMC equipped could buzz through? Just because you could, you should NOT buzz through any cloud on a VFR flight, that is one of the most fundamental rules for VFR flying. And so shouldn't a computer-flown aircraft, especially if it is trying to fly better than human pilots :}

I'd say that vid was edited by the marketing department.You can see the landing part here, it has the list of "marketing departments" involved in making this video. :p
RlaDeojkLcU

[flybymike]

How did that DA42 auto-land know the pilot was out? What triggered the takeover?

Presumably it would be relatively simple to design a programme which recognised a loss of control inputs from the pilot and a subsequent departure towards an unusual attitude etc.
Quite what would happen if the auto pilot was engaged I don't know, but they reckon to have already devised in car systems which can detect a driver who is falling asleep.

Edit. Already answered in part by rnzoli