TOO GOOD FOR GA?
Rarely does accidents have anything to do with training.
Pilots particularly the most experienced ones "HAVE THE TRAINING" every pilot can recognize a stall and know what to do So why didn't the pilots of AF 447 (or any other accident) on this occasion, because there was a different reason/circumstances. Nothing to do with training. Attitude, Respect and Situational Awareness, cannot be trained, you either have it or you don't.
Pilots particularly the most experienced ones "HAVE THE TRAINING" every pilot can recognize a stall and know what to do So why didn't the pilots of AF 447 (or any other accident) on this occasion, because there was a different reason/circumstances. Nothing to do with training. Attitude, Respect and Situational Awareness, cannot be trained, you either have it or you don't.
AF 447 (or any other accident) on this occasion, because there was a different reason/circumstances. Nothing to do with training.
That’s Monday morning quarterbacking.
Rarely does accidents have anything to do with training.
Pilots particularly the most experienced ones "HAVE THE TRAINING" every pilot can recognize a stall and know what to do So why didn't the pilots of AF 447 (or any other accident) on this occasion, because there was a different reason/circumstances. Nothing to do with training. Attitude, Respect and Situational Awareness, cannot be trained, you either have it or you don't.
Pilots particularly the most experienced ones "HAVE THE TRAINING" every pilot can recognize a stall and know what to do So why didn't the pilots of AF 447 (or any other accident) on this occasion, because there was a different reason/circumstances. Nothing to do with training. Attitude, Respect and Situational Awareness, cannot be trained, you either have it or you don't.
So yes SA can be taught.
As per AF447 they were lacking traing in high altitude aerodynamics and the differences in stall identification and recovery at high altitude. Again a direct failure of their training department.
Although, to be fair, I believe it would have been, at the time, a failure in MOST airline training departments, not just AF's - but that's one of the key reasons accidents like these are investigated in the first place: so those still alive can learn.
Yes, I wouldn't single out AF on that one.
That's why EASA, FAA, ICAO and all the other alphabets have implemented UPRT across the heavy end of the industry. It was clearly lacking, just AF were the highest profile (there were others).
That's why EASA, FAA, ICAO and all the other alphabets have implemented UPRT across the heavy end of the industry. It was clearly lacking, just AF were the highest profile (there were others).
Rarely does accidents have anything to do with training.
Pilots particularly the most experienced ones "HAVE THE TRAINING" every pilot can recognize a stall and know what to do So why didn't the pilots of AF 447 (or any other accident) on this occasion, because there was a different reason/circumstances. Nothing to do with training. Attitude, Respect and Situational Awareness, cannot be trained, you either have it or you don't.
Pilots particularly the most experienced ones "HAVE THE TRAINING" every pilot can recognize a stall and know what to do So why didn't the pilots of AF 447 (or any other accident) on this occasion, because there was a different reason/circumstances. Nothing to do with training. Attitude, Respect and Situational Awareness, cannot be trained, you either have it or you don't.
Is quite characteristic this final report of Latvian CAA that blames pilot selection and training
During the investigation the pilot training records were scrutinized to reveal potential gaps in the pilot training and checking process. The available information about the training process of the pilot involved in the serious incident reveals that the pilot had the Type Rating Training Course (Initial training) for the aircraft type BD-500 (A220) from September 1 till November 26, 2020. The course training records reveal some deficiencies of the pilot’s flight skills: incorrect manipulation with the sidestick, pumping of the rudder for the directional control, untimely and inadequate rudder pedals input to ensure directional control, unnecessary application of brakes, etc. In the first Latvian CAA Skill test and proficiency check after the Rating Training Course the pilot failed due to “Insufficient skills. Lack of time.” After the additional training the test was passed. In 2021, the pilot had further Flight Trainings. The Flight Training Records contain remarks of the flight instructors, namely, periodical uncertainty in command of the aircraft and crew and lack of exchange of flight information with the pilot-monitoring [FO] when flying manually. The investigation has analysed the all available (provided) information about the training process of the pilot involved in the serious incident and suggests that there are potential gaps in the company pilots’ selection, training and checking programs, as well as in the information exchange and analysis by the airline's training department. The investigation has no access to the information on how the operator collects and analyses the information gathered during the training process.
There is a possibility that the pilot with obvious deficiencies during the training and checking period was authorized for line operations without having additional training or another means of mitigation to minimize potential risks. A similar situation with incorrect pilot actions during the landing in crosswind and gusty conditions occurred on June 21, 2018 at the Riga International airport with the airBaltic aircraft A200-300, registration number YL-CSC [Final Report No 4-02/1-18(4-19)]. The FDR data of the involved aircraft showed the application of the right rudder pedal with a simultaneous increase of the left brake pedal application. The higher brake force application on the left-hand side main gear wheels caused the aircraft deviation to the left with a subsequent aircraft side skid. The investigation of this serious incident concluded, that the Root cause of the incident [21/06/2018] was related with uncoordinated asymmetric actions of the flight crew in controlling of the aircraft during the landing. Analysing the actions of the airline pilots in both situations, the investigators can assume that the repeated cause of the incidents was the improper handling of the aircraft by the crews to counteract crosswind conditions. It is likely possible that the airline pilot training program has not been updated considering possible deficiencies and the previous incident.
No, the biggest 'whiners' on this thread know and understand the system they work under, 'Clarkey' clearly doesn't. To spend 3 years fighting a legal battle rather than get in the system, understand the competencies and qualifications that haven't been met yet, meet them then upgrade in a relatively short time is a bit strange, and dare I say, arrogant.
Whatever you reckon about your best mate, he does not meet the quals to waltz straight onto G1 with the instructor privileges he was seeking. Simple. All he needed was to seek out a suitable mentor to guide him through the process. head down and arse up and he probably would have been there in a year.
Whatever you reckon about your best mate, he does not meet the quals to waltz straight onto G1 with the instructor privileges he was seeking. Simple. All he needed was to seek out a suitable mentor to guide him through the process. head down and arse up and he probably would have been there in a year.
If it gets easy for skilled and experienced pilots to instruct, the competition will raise
Also some flight schools will have to decide how to be more attractive
By making their students instructors after selling them an FI rating, or by hiring highly skilled ex military instructors?
Clarkey is on a crusade that's why he took the hard way
He is not doing that for his own interest but to make a point
"Can you imagine the reverse, if an experienced GA Pilot joined the RAAF and then started demanding his prior civilian experience get him accelerated qualifications and went to an adjudicator if he didn’t get his way?! He’d be laughed off the base"
Totally agree.
Totally agree.
The following 4 users liked this post by RichardJones:
In 1982 one on my instructors was an older gentleman, that worked on a casual basis at the flying school.
He was ex RAAF, flown Mustangs, Vampires and Meteors.
He did not want to fly the mahogany bomber and so went into GA.
DCA in the early 1960’s issued him with a commercial licence-no flight test and no exams, and a grade 2 instructor rating, again no flight test, he declined the instrument rating. Within two years of leaving the RAAF, he was CFI of a large country flying school with a Grade1 rating and held all the necessary approvals.
We always stayed in contact, and he told me that he never held an instructor rating in the RAAF. Off he went instructing in Chipmunks, then Cessna’s and Pipers and did his instructor renewals every two years.
He was ex RAAF, flown Mustangs, Vampires and Meteors.
He did not want to fly the mahogany bomber and so went into GA.
DCA in the early 1960’s issued him with a commercial licence-no flight test and no exams, and a grade 2 instructor rating, again no flight test, he declined the instrument rating. Within two years of leaving the RAAF, he was CFI of a large country flying school with a Grade1 rating and held all the necessary approvals.
We always stayed in contact, and he told me that he never held an instructor rating in the RAAF. Off he went instructing in Chipmunks, then Cessna’s and Pipers and did his instructor renewals every two years.
The following users liked this post:
This is entirely consistent to what they do with people who train in airlines, they can have thousands of hours of training, they can also have a CASA delegation, however as every person they train already has a CPL, their training counts for nothing as their approvals only are valid whilst working at that airline. if they want to instruct in GA, they have to start with a Grade 3..
Personally I don’t think this individual has any intention of doing any GA instructing. Many leadership roles in aviation require the person to have previously held a Grade 1 instructor rating. That is one of the reasons why airline trainers go and do their initial instructor ratings.
The following 2 users liked this post by swh:
The following users liked this post:
Neil Armstrong spent over twice as long as a civilian test pilot than he had previously as a Navy pilot.
Project Mercury was only open to military test pilots, so he wasn't eligible.
Project Gemini was open to civilian test pilots and the rest is history.
.
Project Mercury was only open to military test pilots, so he wasn't eligible.
Project Gemini was open to civilian test pilots and the rest is history.
.
Incorrect, both CASA and the AAT said he did not have the equivalent qualifications AND experience. The RAAF does not have the equivalent qualification of a G1 instructor. Because of his postings, he never did the equivalent of ab-initial training in the RAAF, every trainee he had already had the equivalent of a CPL. In his logbook he only had 0.8 hours of instructor training. If he had different postings, and different experience whilst in the RAAF, the outcome would be different.
This is entirely consistent to what they do with people who train in airlines, they can have thousands of hours of training, they can also have a CASA delegation, however as every person they train already has a CPL, their training counts for nothing as their approvals only are valid whilst working at that airline. if they want to instruct in GA, they have to start with a Grade 3..
Personally I don’t think this individual has any intention of doing any GA instructing. Many leadership roles in aviation require the person to have previously held a Grade 1 instructor rating. That is one of the reasons why airline trainers go and do their initial instructor ratings.
This is entirely consistent to what they do with people who train in airlines, they can have thousands of hours of training, they can also have a CASA delegation, however as every person they train already has a CPL, their training counts for nothing as their approvals only are valid whilst working at that airline. if they want to instruct in GA, they have to start with a Grade 3..
Personally I don’t think this individual has any intention of doing any GA instructing. Many leadership roles in aviation require the person to have previously held a Grade 1 instructor rating. That is one of the reasons why airline trainers go and do their initial instructor ratings.
107. In the case of each of the authorisations sought by the Applicant, for the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the ADF qualification held by the Applicant is at least equivalent to the authorisation sought as required by CASR 61.285 for the Applicant to be taken to meet the requirements for the grant of the authorisations. Accordingly, the decision made by the Respondent on 29 April 2020 insofar as it relates to the four authorisations sought, is affirmed.
The reason for the distinction is made clear in, among other paras, the one a couple from the last:
Again, while the Applicant’s experience may well mean that he could instruct instructors, that is not the test under CASR 61.285. The Applicant simply does not hold an ADF qualification that is sufficiently similar to the authorisation sought to be considered as at least equivalent to the authorisation sought.
Just one