3rd Party - Ongoing Training/Safety provider
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3rd Party - Ongoing Training/Safety provider
In light of another aviator lost today, I raise the topic for a proper discussion on Regulation vs Operation.
We all know the current system in place which is tasked for this, however it would seem there is a drastic need for a third party, potentially a private enterprise chartered by the government or such, which
- actually promotes safety
- Encourages continuation training at all skill levels
- Engages the flying community on all levels
- Welcomes ideas for the betterment of all in our skies
- distributes thought provoking literature / training material.
- Is approachable in any avenue
It may very well have to be a private enterprise that is out there to help our pilots, not simply 'regulate'
Not a C - word thread, more a potential 'heart bypass'. Ideas...?
We all know the current system in place which is tasked for this, however it would seem there is a drastic need for a third party, potentially a private enterprise chartered by the government or such, which
- actually promotes safety
- Encourages continuation training at all skill levels
- Engages the flying community on all levels
- Welcomes ideas for the betterment of all in our skies
- distributes thought provoking literature / training material.
- Is approachable in any avenue
It may very well have to be a private enterprise that is out there to help our pilots, not simply 'regulate'
Not a C - word thread, more a potential 'heart bypass'. Ideas...?
With respect,
people are prone to driving too fast, driving while drunk, driving while texting etc.
There will always be a component of the population who will, in the right set of circumstances, take risks that were either underestimated or accepted willlingly.
This sub-set of the population often seems unwilling to listen to others.
That said,
When Ben Cook brought Tony Kern out to Australia in 2007(?) I think it changed the world view for a lot of pilots, including me.
What a pity that AOPA couldn't function in the way you are suggesting.
people are prone to driving too fast, driving while drunk, driving while texting etc.
There will always be a component of the population who will, in the right set of circumstances, take risks that were either underestimated or accepted willlingly.
This sub-set of the population often seems unwilling to listen to others.
That said,
When Ben Cook brought Tony Kern out to Australia in 2007(?) I think it changed the world view for a lot of pilots, including me.
What a pity that AOPA couldn't function in the way you are suggesting.
Pilots are, by nature, often blessed (or cursed) with big egos.
In the airline world, this tendency is controlled by mandatory and on-going CRM and Human Factors training. But many private pilots would, I suspect, push back on any attempt to mandate more than the existing biennial flight review system.
And if it was not mandatory, it is probable that only a few would voluntarily submit to further training or mentoring.
It is really up to aircraft operators such as flying clubs to impose their own requirements. Mostly they are only concerned with recency on type, which of course is not the whole issue. But if they insisted on too much on-going training, they would lose customers.
The only way most owner-pilots could be brought to additional training would be at the insistence of their insurers, and unless all insurers adopted similar policies that would result in owners shopping around for the softest option.
For those so inclined, there is already plenty of good material to be had via aircraft owner and similar special interest associations, Flight Safety Foundation etc
In the airline world, this tendency is controlled by mandatory and on-going CRM and Human Factors training. But many private pilots would, I suspect, push back on any attempt to mandate more than the existing biennial flight review system.
And if it was not mandatory, it is probable that only a few would voluntarily submit to further training or mentoring.
It is really up to aircraft operators such as flying clubs to impose their own requirements. Mostly they are only concerned with recency on type, which of course is not the whole issue. But if they insisted on too much on-going training, they would lose customers.
The only way most owner-pilots could be brought to additional training would be at the insistence of their insurers, and unless all insurers adopted similar policies that would result in owners shopping around for the softest option.
For those so inclined, there is already plenty of good material to be had via aircraft owner and similar special interest associations, Flight Safety Foundation etc
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" it would seem there is a drastic need for a third party, potentially a private enterprise chartered by the government or such, which
- actually promotes safety
- Encourages continuation training at all skill levels
- Engages the flying community on all levels
- Welcomes ideas for the betterment of all in our skies
- distributes thought provoking literature / training material.
- Is approachable in any avenue"
There is, its called the FAA.
- actually promotes safety
- Encourages continuation training at all skill levels
- Engages the flying community on all levels
- Welcomes ideas for the betterment of all in our skies
- distributes thought provoking literature / training material.
- Is approachable in any avenue"
There is, its called the FAA.
