Training fixes
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
doing a CFIT while DR is just bad luck whereas doing a CFIT while on GPS is really poor airmanship
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK has around 23,000 PP about .04% of the population, Germany and France both have a similar percentage of the population. That said GA, compared with the US, is in a poor state in Europe.
I couldn’t agree more about inexperience and ignorance. I fully support pilots owning up when lost and agree it should be a rare occurrence.
Pilots should not get lost and if they are with the regularity WWW suggests there is a significant problem. If the problem exists then surely the root cause must be with the training. Yes, pilots are responsible for keeping up their own skill levels but if they are not doing so - why not? Either they are on the whole irresponsible (possible
) or the initial and re-occurrence training is not instilling in them a regime for keeping up their own skill levels. I am not bashing FI, simply debating how the problem might be fixed.
I suppose there is a third possibility which is that as a whole private pilots just do not fly enough to consistently ensure they will not got lost. If that is so, maybe we should accept the problem, BUT I would still argue the solution is in persuading pilots to own up when genuinely lost not claim it is a practice fix, rather than to make it illegal to ask for a practice fix unless there is a FI aboard. After all, however you describe them, their will still be the same number of calls to D and D unless their really are huge numbers of pilots using the service to make genuine training fixes! (which again if it is causing the problem suggested then FIs should persuade pilots not to make so many training fixes!)
I couldn’t agree more about inexperience and ignorance. I fully support pilots owning up when lost and agree it should be a rare occurrence.
Pilots should not get lost and if they are with the regularity WWW suggests there is a significant problem. If the problem exists then surely the root cause must be with the training. Yes, pilots are responsible for keeping up their own skill levels but if they are not doing so - why not? Either they are on the whole irresponsible (possible
) or the initial and re-occurrence training is not instilling in them a regime for keeping up their own skill levels. I am not bashing FI, simply debating how the problem might be fixed.I suppose there is a third possibility which is that as a whole private pilots just do not fly enough to consistently ensure they will not got lost. If that is so, maybe we should accept the problem, BUT I would still argue the solution is in persuading pilots to own up when genuinely lost not claim it is a practice fix, rather than to make it illegal to ask for a practice fix unless there is a FI aboard. After all, however you describe them, their will still be the same number of calls to D and D unless their really are huge numbers of pilots using the service to make genuine training fixes! (which again if it is causing the problem suggested then FIs should persuade pilots not to make so many training fixes!)
"Pan Pan Pan Golf Blah Lost, Last known position Nottingham maintaining 3000 feet QNH".
"London Centre, this is Golf Blah, requesting a training fix maintaining 3000 feet QNH".
Can't see the difference meself. One is going to get his "Pan acknowledged" which will take 0.89 extra seconds. But then he's also going to get extra goodies such as beware of Glider Site 2 miles in your 2 o'clock and also the MSA. He's also going to be telling the truth.
You either know your position or don't and therefore you are either Lost or you aren't. You are not rehearsing nor teaching an r/t procedure and therefore are in no need of a training fix.
Commercial aviation is a vital export earner and net importer of wealth and jobs to UK Plc so please lets not have the Sunday Cessna brigade pontificating on issues of fuel taxation. And will you ladies get off being so offended by the terms horse****. It was merely a deftly used mildest of expletives deployed to harness an enthusiastic response on what is a fairly full topic. Don't take PPRuNe too seriously for heavens sake!
Cheers
WWW
"London Centre, this is Golf Blah, requesting a training fix maintaining 3000 feet QNH".
Can't see the difference meself. One is going to get his "Pan acknowledged" which will take 0.89 extra seconds. But then he's also going to get extra goodies such as beware of Glider Site 2 miles in your 2 o'clock and also the MSA. He's also going to be telling the truth.
You either know your position or don't and therefore you are either Lost or you aren't. You are not rehearsing nor teaching an r/t procedure and therefore are in no need of a training fix.
Commercial aviation is a vital export earner and net importer of wealth and jobs to UK Plc so please lets not have the Sunday Cessna brigade pontificating on issues of fuel taxation. And will you ladies get off being so offended by the terms horse****. It was merely a deftly used mildest of expletives deployed to harness an enthusiastic response on what is a fairly full topic. Don't take PPRuNe too seriously for heavens sake!
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I think the issue of fuel taxation is one of the major safety debates that there is at the moment. Why is flying so expensive? One of the major reasons is fuel costs, mostly made up of duty and VAT.
We all agree that people who fly more often are generally safer than those who fly occasionally.
So if we cut the cost, people fly more often, therefore G/A gets safer and more competent.
Now how do we lobby government?!
In France and Germany, there may be a similar amount of pilots, but I'll wager they fly a bit more than we do here. Overall I have often felt there is a different attitude in Europe to light aircraft and in general it is positive, rather than here where the BAA and other esteemed bodies seem hell bent on making life as difficult as possible.
Unfortunately I would have to say that many pilots (leaving out licence types here) can sometimes have a bit of an ego problem. I have certainly come across it, especially when I started teaching as a 22 year old. Invariably middle aged succesful business men who weren't used to having some young spod telling them what to do! Battles of wills were often inevitable. I'm glad to say I think I won them all though!
Maybe my view has been skewed by these experiences, but many don't seem to have the whit to work out what they don't know, let alone spend the time keeping their skills up.One way around this is to get rid of the biennial flight with an instructor and make everyone do a full skills test again. Not likely to be popular though. (except from the examiners financial point of view!)
We all agree that people who fly more often are generally safer than those who fly occasionally.
So if we cut the cost, people fly more often, therefore G/A gets safer and more competent.
Now how do we lobby government?!
In France and Germany, there may be a similar amount of pilots, but I'll wager they fly a bit more than we do here. Overall I have often felt there is a different attitude in Europe to light aircraft and in general it is positive, rather than here where the BAA and other esteemed bodies seem hell bent on making life as difficult as possible.
Unfortunately I would have to say that many pilots (leaving out licence types here) can sometimes have a bit of an ego problem. I have certainly come across it, especially when I started teaching as a 22 year old. Invariably middle aged succesful business men who weren't used to having some young spod telling them what to do! Battles of wills were often inevitable. I'm glad to say I think I won them all though!
Maybe my view has been skewed by these experiences, but many don't seem to have the whit to work out what they don't know, let alone spend the time keeping their skills up.One way around this is to get rid of the biennial flight with an instructor and make everyone do a full skills test again. Not likely to be popular though. (except from the examiners financial point of view!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can't see the difference meself.
Time to stop playing your one note guitar WWW, you don't have a lot of credibility on this thread following your ludicrous claims and failure to provide any justification for them.
Final 3 Greens: On a thread called 'Training Fixes' you'll forgive me for sticking to the one note rather than digressing into a symphony of fuel duty, GPS naviagation and PPL training standards... Or maybe you won't.
My ludicruous claim is that many Training Fix calls should be Lost calls. That the overuse of 121.5 in the UK FIR is leading to more incidents of Guard not being monitored and this is to the detriment of flight safety.
The result of my claims is a communication with CHIRP and the CAA SRG for this to be looked at.
Cheers
WWW
ps And Practice Pans can be shown the door as well unless with an instructor.
My ludicruous claim is that many Training Fix calls should be Lost calls. That the overuse of 121.5 in the UK FIR is leading to more incidents of Guard not being monitored and this is to the detriment of flight safety.
The result of my claims is a communication with CHIRP and the CAA SRG for this to be looked at.
Cheers
WWW
ps And Practice Pans can be shown the door as well unless with an instructor.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flik Roll
I think that is exactly the point that WWW just does not want to grasp.
So called training fixes will become I am actually lost calls - no change in the numbers there then, and presumably the few totally genuine training fixes will become even fewer so not much change there.
So after all this debating and writing to CHIRP and the CAA all that has happened is we have just called training fixes by a different name - but FAR FAR worse there may be some pilots who feel guilty about now say they are really lost, so don’t bother, bust some airspace and increase everyone’s work load never mind the safety implications. Yeah, we know they shouldn’t feel guilty, but it is no ground pretending the human condition does not exist - that is just nuts.
Sorry to go about it, but why oh why cant we recognise that these sort of problems are down to training. I am not blaming the instructors for the sake of it, but in my own experience I just don’t think instructors do enough to instill in pilots sound navigational skills or the need to recognise they are responsible for their own ongoing training. When was the last time you did a navex on your biannual and the instructor suggested you go and do a bit more currency training after your performance?
I think that is exactly the point that WWW just does not want to grasp.
So called training fixes will become I am actually lost calls - no change in the numbers there then, and presumably the few totally genuine training fixes will become even fewer so not much change there.
So after all this debating and writing to CHIRP and the CAA all that has happened is we have just called training fixes by a different name - but FAR FAR worse there may be some pilots who feel guilty about now say they are really lost, so don’t bother, bust some airspace and increase everyone’s work load never mind the safety implications. Yeah, we know they shouldn’t feel guilty, but it is no ground pretending the human condition does not exist - that is just nuts.
Sorry to go about it, but why oh why cant we recognise that these sort of problems are down to training. I am not blaming the instructors for the sake of it, but in my own experience I just don’t think instructors do enough to instill in pilots sound navigational skills or the need to recognise they are responsible for their own ongoing training. When was the last time you did a navex on your biannual and the instructor suggested you go and do a bit more currency training after your performance?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
I do hope that people won't stop calling for help if they need it. For the final time, that is not what WWW and I have been objecting to. It is people calling and pretending they aren't lost when in reality they are. Am I alone in hoping that the pilots of this country aren't so idiotic as to not be able to admit mistakes? If that is the case, then ban them all! there is no place for egotism in an a/c cockpit. Especially when things are going wrong. Confidence yes, Ego no.
If D&D themselves don't see a need to change procedures, then nor do I.
It's funny, but I mentioned tis thread to my other half, who is a non-flyer and not particularily fussed by it all. Her reaction?
"Just make it so that people can only call for a training fix when there is an FI onboard." As I've said before, I don't agree with that, but it's always interesting how someone unconnected with the minutae of an issue percieves it.
Which Wonky Welsh Windbag are you talking about? I've been accused of being one of those a few times myself.
I do hope that people won't stop calling for help if they need it. For the final time, that is not what WWW and I have been objecting to. It is people calling and pretending they aren't lost when in reality they are. Am I alone in hoping that the pilots of this country aren't so idiotic as to not be able to admit mistakes? If that is the case, then ban them all! there is no place for egotism in an a/c cockpit. Especially when things are going wrong. Confidence yes, Ego no.
If D&D themselves don't see a need to change procedures, then nor do I.
It's funny, but I mentioned tis thread to my other half, who is a non-flyer and not particularily fussed by it all. Her reaction?
"Just make it so that people can only call for a training fix when there is an FI onboard." As I've said before, I don't agree with that, but it's always interesting how someone unconnected with the minutae of an issue percieves it.
Which Wonky Welsh Windbag are you talking about? I've been accused of being one of those a few times myself.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS,
Your contributions to this thread are well thought out and stand out above several others, but this thread is not about GA pilots pretending they aren't lost when they are. I see it as being about GA pilots responding to yet another ill thought out threat to reduce services that UK GA pilots receive. Nobody has said it's OK to lie.
Your contributions to this thread are well thought out and stand out above several others, but this thread is not about GA pilots pretending they aren't lost when they are. I see it as being about GA pilots responding to yet another ill thought out threat to reduce services that UK GA pilots receive. Nobody has said it's OK to lie.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say again slowly
It is sometime a struggle to know how much of this is tongue in cheek. Whether or not it is for the final time, it doesn’t mean your point is correct.
I sense everyone agrees, including you and WWW, that training fixes disguising lost fixes are not a good idea, but you cannot really believe that was WWWs arguement.
"I'd make it an offence for anyone without an FI Rating to ask for a training fix. In fact I am writing to the CAA SRG today to ask for that to become a UK rule."
That seems to me a pretty clear and understandable statement of intent. Bluntly I disagree with the statement and the intent.
In any event the solution does not solve the problem to which you refer. As I said earlier the number of calls will presumably stay much the same (one every 90 seconds), so WWW will still be annoyed, and to make matters worse there will now be a few pilots who don’t want to admit to being lost - the consequences of which pale into insignificance with WWW being a bit annoyed.
I would not normally take such a vociferous stance but how can we possibly support a proposed change to legislation which would seem to be based on unreliable information (a call every 90 seconds) and which too boot would not seem to solve the perceived problem.
It is sometime a struggle to know how much of this is tongue in cheek. Whether or not it is for the final time, it doesn’t mean your point is correct.
I sense everyone agrees, including you and WWW, that training fixes disguising lost fixes are not a good idea, but you cannot really believe that was WWWs arguement.
"I'd make it an offence for anyone without an FI Rating to ask for a training fix. In fact I am writing to the CAA SRG today to ask for that to become a UK rule."
That seems to me a pretty clear and understandable statement of intent. Bluntly I disagree with the statement and the intent.
In any event the solution does not solve the problem to which you refer. As I said earlier the number of calls will presumably stay much the same (one every 90 seconds), so WWW will still be annoyed, and to make matters worse there will now be a few pilots who don’t want to admit to being lost - the consequences of which pale into insignificance with WWW being a bit annoyed.
I would not normally take such a vociferous stance but how can we possibly support a proposed change to legislation which would seem to be based on unreliable information (a call every 90 seconds) and which too boot would not seem to solve the perceived problem.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about we call it a 'position fix'. Then it can be used for either training or as confirmation of position. A multi-purpose phrase which encompases both training and non-training scenarios - a bit like go-arounds as suggested by Fuji.
Guest
Posts: n/a
SAS,
The bit I fail to grasp, is why does it make any difference if they pretend to be lost or actually are? Who cares if they are trying to save face? That isn't my idea of lying, which I would prefer to align with deviousness, not embarressment. Also, being afraid to admit to mistakes doesn't make you an idiot. I would wager that the only pilots who could grudgingly admit they really have messed up big time is a narrow band between the most unconfident and the most confident. Also, it has occured to me that it is called a "Training Fix" to not discourage people from calling sooner than later - is a little bit of psycology beyond the CAA?
It is people calling and pretending they aren't lost when in reality they are. Am I alone in hoping that the pilots of this country aren't so idiotic as to not be able to admit mistakes?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's funny, but I've always been the first to admit to my mistakes. I don't see them as a failing unless they happen over and over.
One of the reasons I am totally open with my students and members so that they can see that I have had my fair share of mistakes and problems. Hopefully this means they will be more forthcoming with me if they do have problems, rather than worrying if I'd bite their head off if they admit to any stuff up.
Is psychology beyond our friends at the belgrano? Not sure if it is, but the whole point is that we should all be adult enough to know when we've ar*ed up. D&D aren't some big scarey organisation who will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you call saying you are lost. They are an extremely professional organisation who are there to help you, not punish you.
You aren't going to get kicking from anyone for calling for help. It is the right thing to do and that's it.
The reasons why people do something aren't really the debate, swallowing a bit of pride and realising that you aren't Biggles may be a bit of a kick to your pride, but what's more important. Doing the right thing and asking for help or trying to muddle out of it and potentially causing more problems down the line?
If you've reached the point where you realise you are lost. Most people will be starting to panic somewhat. We all know that you don't generally make good decisions when you are panicking, so why not help yourself as much as possible by getting the D&D service working for you properly. It will take a massive load off your mind straight away knowing that you're in safe hands.
As said before, I agree with WWW sentiments about not abusing the D&D service, but I cannot agree with the idea of only allowing FI's or P/UT's to ask for training fixes. Having a pratice every so often is fine by my book as long as that is exactly what it is. A practice not pretending to be something else.
A bit of noise on 121.5 is fine sometimes, it lets me know the box is still working! It doesn't bug me too much hearing calls, it's the "G-blah-de-blah good morning" whilst we're screaming through the localiser that get my goat!
One of the reasons I am totally open with my students and members so that they can see that I have had my fair share of mistakes and problems. Hopefully this means they will be more forthcoming with me if they do have problems, rather than worrying if I'd bite their head off if they admit to any stuff up.
Is psychology beyond our friends at the belgrano? Not sure if it is, but the whole point is that we should all be adult enough to know when we've ar*ed up. D&D aren't some big scarey organisation who will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you call saying you are lost. They are an extremely professional organisation who are there to help you, not punish you.
You aren't going to get kicking from anyone for calling for help. It is the right thing to do and that's it.
The reasons why people do something aren't really the debate, swallowing a bit of pride and realising that you aren't Biggles may be a bit of a kick to your pride, but what's more important. Doing the right thing and asking for help or trying to muddle out of it and potentially causing more problems down the line?
If you've reached the point where you realise you are lost. Most people will be starting to panic somewhat. We all know that you don't generally make good decisions when you are panicking, so why not help yourself as much as possible by getting the D&D service working for you properly. It will take a massive load off your mind straight away knowing that you're in safe hands.
As said before, I agree with WWW sentiments about not abusing the D&D service, but I cannot agree with the idea of only allowing FI's or P/UT's to ask for training fixes. Having a pratice every so often is fine by my book as long as that is exactly what it is. A practice not pretending to be something else.
A bit of noise on 121.5 is fine sometimes, it lets me know the box is still working! It doesn't bug me too much hearing calls, it's the "G-blah-de-blah good morning" whilst we're screaming through the localiser that get my goat!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"G-blah-de-blah good morning"
Now there is another point with which I agree totally! I wish so many pilots didn’t have to share their life history with us.
I think this thread is of great interest because it has become quite a detailed analysis of the way in which we react and the factors that influence us.
There are those who are "happy" to admit their mistakes, and the greater majority who I suspect are less happy. I think it is a hall mark of the professional pilot, and particularly the commercial pilot, that they are more willing to admit mistakes that the private pilot. Is this so because there has been much emphasis on the dangers of taking an ego into the workplace?
Why are the greater majority less happy to admit mistakes? Perhaps it says something about our society when in many work places admission of mistakes is seen as a weakness or is it society has just become less tolerant of small mistakes. (A speeding ticket for being 4 mph over the limit for maybe only a few hundred yards of a 30 mph zone). Perhaps our reaction to these pressures is that we resist admitting we are wrong?
I think safety has to recognise the human condition. Not a lot is to be gained by saying pilots should own up to being lost if the evidence is they are more likely to blunder on rather than admit their mistake. (and I use the word "if" carefully because I have no evidence to support my contention).
If I am correct perhaps Romeo Romeo has it - why get hung up on "forcing" a pilot to admit he is lost. A service is available to enable a pilot to confirm his position and I bet in the vast majority of cases a pilot will only seek to confirm his position because he feels he needs to.
No one, including fortunately even WWW, has suggested that when a pilot admits he is lost he should be penalised in some way. (although you could imagine the CAA might write to him suggesting some currency training would be in order!).
Hopefully, if a training fix doesn’t sort the problem out, and our pilot is dreadfully lost he will still have the sense to turn his position fix into a "help, I need vectors!" and as someone else said D and D probably have a good idea when a pilot is really getting into problems. In other words when we start to get really scared we will admit almost anything!
All of this doesn’t really solve the problem as to why people are getting lost so often. I don’t accept it is every 90 seconds but I do accept it occurs more often than it should. Training must have something to do with it and I cant help feeling the opportunity of reviewing navigation at the bi-annual is often not taken. I think pilots are also more conscious of the need to know their position more accurately that in the past because of the amount of controlled airspace, danger areas, notam restrictions etc that exist and the "threat" that uninvited incursions will be treated very seriously. Perhaps pilots on the whole fly less hours than they use to but I don’t have the evidence to support this. As others have said I agree that the powers that be have been very slow to recognise the impact of new technology - I personally think the use of a moving map GPS should be a requirement of the PPL syllabus.
As always it is only by properly understanding the problem that solutions can be found - a somewhat simple statement that seems to be all to often ignored. As I have already said I get vociferous when the knee jerk reaction (from people who should know better) is to legislate to solve a problem without apparently seeking to understand the problem and what the effect of simply changing the legislation is likely to be. In this instance I think it would be less calls to D and D, but more incursions and more pilots getting themselves into serious problems. Please WWW don't do it, don't suggest the legislation be changed , find a better way.
Now there is another point with which I agree totally! I wish so many pilots didn’t have to share their life history with us.
I think this thread is of great interest because it has become quite a detailed analysis of the way in which we react and the factors that influence us.
There are those who are "happy" to admit their mistakes, and the greater majority who I suspect are less happy. I think it is a hall mark of the professional pilot, and particularly the commercial pilot, that they are more willing to admit mistakes that the private pilot. Is this so because there has been much emphasis on the dangers of taking an ego into the workplace?
Why are the greater majority less happy to admit mistakes? Perhaps it says something about our society when in many work places admission of mistakes is seen as a weakness or is it society has just become less tolerant of small mistakes. (A speeding ticket for being 4 mph over the limit for maybe only a few hundred yards of a 30 mph zone). Perhaps our reaction to these pressures is that we resist admitting we are wrong?
I think safety has to recognise the human condition. Not a lot is to be gained by saying pilots should own up to being lost if the evidence is they are more likely to blunder on rather than admit their mistake. (and I use the word "if" carefully because I have no evidence to support my contention).
If I am correct perhaps Romeo Romeo has it - why get hung up on "forcing" a pilot to admit he is lost. A service is available to enable a pilot to confirm his position and I bet in the vast majority of cases a pilot will only seek to confirm his position because he feels he needs to.
No one, including fortunately even WWW, has suggested that when a pilot admits he is lost he should be penalised in some way. (although you could imagine the CAA might write to him suggesting some currency training would be in order!).
Hopefully, if a training fix doesn’t sort the problem out, and our pilot is dreadfully lost he will still have the sense to turn his position fix into a "help, I need vectors!" and as someone else said D and D probably have a good idea when a pilot is really getting into problems. In other words when we start to get really scared we will admit almost anything!
All of this doesn’t really solve the problem as to why people are getting lost so often. I don’t accept it is every 90 seconds but I do accept it occurs more often than it should. Training must have something to do with it and I cant help feeling the opportunity of reviewing navigation at the bi-annual is often not taken. I think pilots are also more conscious of the need to know their position more accurately that in the past because of the amount of controlled airspace, danger areas, notam restrictions etc that exist and the "threat" that uninvited incursions will be treated very seriously. Perhaps pilots on the whole fly less hours than they use to but I don’t have the evidence to support this. As others have said I agree that the powers that be have been very slow to recognise the impact of new technology - I personally think the use of a moving map GPS should be a requirement of the PPL syllabus.
As always it is only by properly understanding the problem that solutions can be found - a somewhat simple statement that seems to be all to often ignored. As I have already said I get vociferous when the knee jerk reaction (from people who should know better) is to legislate to solve a problem without apparently seeking to understand the problem and what the effect of simply changing the legislation is likely to be. In this instance I think it would be less calls to D and D, but more incursions and more pilots getting themselves into serious problems. Please WWW don't do it, don't suggest the legislation be changed , find a better way.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 13th Sep 2005 at 20:18.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
opportunity of reviewing navigation at the bi-annual
Rather a lot of very silly comments on this thread, I regret to say.
Firstly, the Training Fix is a method for practising D&D procedures for pilots and D&D personnel alike. If it has degenerated into a navigational technique used by those who won't admit they're actually lost, then that is an abuse of the system. It also throws doubt on the personal integrity of the pilot; if he won't admit to being lost, what else won't he admit to...?
If airliner-drivers are genuinely inconvenienced by excessive use of 121.5, then perhaps CHIRP action should be taken.
There is no mandatory content for the 2-yearly training flight with an instructor. FI and pilot should decide between them what they wish to practise. It is not a US-style 'Biennial Flight Review', nor should it be termed 'a biennial' as that will lead to ambiguity.
The CFE has stated that an element of visual navigation shall be required as part of a SEP Class Rating Revalidation LPC or Renewal LST (Section 3A). The extent of the navigation exercise is at the Examiner's discretion and should take into account the recent experience of the pilot.
My overall opinion is that WWW is essentially correct, but hasn't made his case particularly well. The bottom line:
A Training Fix is not a valid navigational technique, nor is it appropriate for pilots who are genuinely lost who should advise D&D accordingly. It is purely a method for practising the relevant D&D procedures
Firstly, the Training Fix is a method for practising D&D procedures for pilots and D&D personnel alike. If it has degenerated into a navigational technique used by those who won't admit they're actually lost, then that is an abuse of the system. It also throws doubt on the personal integrity of the pilot; if he won't admit to being lost, what else won't he admit to...?
If airliner-drivers are genuinely inconvenienced by excessive use of 121.5, then perhaps CHIRP action should be taken.
There is no mandatory content for the 2-yearly training flight with an instructor. FI and pilot should decide between them what they wish to practise. It is not a US-style 'Biennial Flight Review', nor should it be termed 'a biennial' as that will lead to ambiguity.
The CFE has stated that an element of visual navigation shall be required as part of a SEP Class Rating Revalidation LPC or Renewal LST (Section 3A). The extent of the navigation exercise is at the Examiner's discretion and should take into account the recent experience of the pilot.
My overall opinion is that WWW is essentially correct, but hasn't made his case particularly well. The bottom line:
A Training Fix is not a valid navigational technique, nor is it appropriate for pilots who are genuinely lost who should advise D&D accordingly. It is purely a method for practising the relevant D&D procedures