|
Most of the instructors I had were perfectly good. All of them are long since gone to fly the big shiny things, instructors have changed several times over since my experiences, and I am not familiar with the current setup. Which makes it difficult and probably unfair to use my experiences as a yard stick.
I actually enjoyed learning to fly there, the incidents I mentioned were isolated just added a bit of amusement. Apart from the cloud incident which pissed me off a bit. Having mentioned the down bits, there were enough good instructors who would organise evening lectures on navigation, met, etc which generated a sense of belonging to something worthwhile. I had an idea which I've never found the time to build was a three dimension model of airspace. Taking several quarter million charts, or even one if you like. Mounted on a sheet of plywood with the airspace built up with translucent bits of plastic. The 3D heights would have to be exaggerated or 2000 feet amounts to .096 inches/2.5 millimetres! At least this would let the student see how airspace looks & how to slide round or under it. For the de- luxe version build high ground from styrofoam as well. Any use? Another good instructor I had would announce "There is a PA 28 just taken off & he's heading this way, don't let him see you, & get on his tail & stay there." Stick & rudder skill required while looking & positioning. Much argument afterwards as to whether we shot him down or not. So 3D models of the Ruhr dams & dog fighting practice, would that help? |
Crash One
We already have that in digital terrain displays which will show you valleys between hills and even warn you that you are getting to close to the terrain by turning amber then red with warnings. All great stuff as a safety addition to your flying skills but not to cover up a lack of those skills. It is when those wonderful pilot aids go wrong that you are left with basic skills. If you are lacking in those basic skills or not current in those basic skills you are in deep trouble! Pace |
Pace
I was actually thinking of the situation 8 years ago, the raw student who was not yet familiar with all the high tech stuff, and an actual solid lump of model terrain that you could touch and poke at. I never intended such an 8 X 4foot sheet of ply to be used in the cockpit! Eventually I'm sure technology will give us the Star Trek Holodeck and we will be able to learn with virtual everything. No doubt it is possible to fly through these valleys purely head down but when the batt goes pop and the virtual landscape goes a dark shade of black, what then? It certainly isn't what the training regime should be doing until the basics are there. |
Originally Posted by Andy_P
This thread kinda pisses me off a bit. Its a "the old way is better" and you here it in every aspect of life. I hear in my job, I hear in in my other sports, here it everywhere. The simple fact it we are far more educated these days, and I see this as a positive. It reflects in statistics.
You may think you are a great pilot just because you learned seat of the pants flying in a tail dragger, but that does not mean anything. To me a great pilot is one that keeps me alive, and that is all that matters. So you got thrown in the deep end when you learned. That is stupid. As you said recently in an article Chuck, how many people died learning crop dusting? Once again, absolutely mind numbingly stupid. What a senseless waste of life? Now, you learn to fly a plane safely first, then you go off and learn the finer aspects of flying. Its a gradual safe introduction that minimises risk to both student and instructor. That is a sensible way to teach. Sure, a 172 is pretty tame, but if you want to go learn tail draggers or aerobatics, then you can. It makes no sense to start off learning the most complex stuff. Learn to fly first, then progress. Much safer that way. I hear the argument about technology all the time, its what I do for a living. The old GPS argument is great. I learned to read chart and use a nautical almanac and sextant for offshore sailing, so it must be better. I used to go hiking and I used a map and compass so it must be better. Fact is, I can safely say that I learned the old way and in my opinion the new way is way is so much better (and safer). I remember when GPS was first introduced, it was pretty hit and miss. Now, technology is so much more robust and reliable, so why not adopt it and make the most of it. I can put my hand up here and say I still have trust issues with GPS, but my rational thought process enables me to overcome this. The real issue here is people get set in their ways, they are afraid to move out of their comfort zone and learn. This is the real problem. This is what makes bad sailors, and I would suggest it also makes bad pilots. Ongoing learning is the key. Teaching people to think critically is vital. If we maintained the mentality that we should do everything the old way, then we would still be flying with wright brothers (in fact, we would not be flying at all).
Originally Posted by Chuck_Ellsworth
My guess is a lot of pilots are satisfied with mediocrity because anything higher is just to difficult for them.
Fact is, most flyers are weekend hobbyists and are never going to ever get to the standard you think, from your giddy height, is the minimum. However passionate and committed to flying they are. Do you really want to limit flying to a tiny limited elite? Oh, and BTW, I think some of Richard Bach's writings (e.g. Illusions) and attitudes are misanthropic and disgraceful |
I have a question for Andy_P:
Sure, a 172 is pretty tame, but if you want to go learn tail draggers or aerobatics, then you can. It makes no sense to start off learning the most complex stuff. Learn to fly first, then progress. Much safer that way. When I learned to fly the Cessna 172 had not yet been designed or built, all we had for training airplanes were tail wheel airplanes.......see the problem I had? However it would appear that my training was not all tht substandard throughout my career because I have flown over thirty thousand hours.. .all accident free. |
And in my view it still is an art. By that I mean, a process of self improvement, a pride in doing things well. An understanding that when you make an error, you try and learn from it. It appears to me, as life changes, the golden years of aviation created an aura, a can do attitude, a pioneer spirit. This has waned into the past. I'm very happy to go against the tide in that regard and profit from it. Some are not, even in aviation. |
Originally Posted by Chuck_Ellsworth:: My guess is a lot of pilots are satisfied with mediocrity because anything higher is just to difficult for them. During the post-war period of interest many societies have attempted to make everything in society a paint-by-numbers 'program' versus a creative, personal journey with outcome depending on performance. I do not look at myself as this guy suggested. Get a kick out of being a skygod with that one Chuck? |
I'm very happy to go against the tide in that regard and profit from it. Some are not, even in aviation. |
Fact is, most flyers are weekend hobbyists and are never going to ever get to the standard you think, It's about attitude! And striving TO GET IT RIGHT! |
Originally Posted by Chuck Ellsworth
(Post 8376291)
The above statement I made was maybe a little to simplistic, however as Silvaire1 said below the new age attitude of teaching in schools that everyone is a winner and no one should feel left out regardless of how much or how little effort they put into the game they should all get first prize....we wouldn't want anyone feeling inferior or left out would we?
I find it rather sad that rather than sharing your experience by providing practical tips and advice to readers like I and others have, all I see is the same old tired instructor bashing rants. |
Sigh, :ugh::ugh:
Big Pistons Forever you need to maybe take a break from trying to disassemble every post I make into it being flight instructor bashing. I was responding to Silvaire1's comment below. During the post-war period of interest many societies have attempted to make everything in society a paint-by-numbers 'program' versus a creative, personal journey with outcome depending on performance. You really should try and let go of our past BPF, it is not healthy to dwell on the past to the point you misinterpret everything I post. And for sure I do not want Pprune to turn into another AVcanada between us. O.K. ? |
Originally Posted by Chuck Ellsworth
Reading your critique of how I learned to fly I have a question that you may be able to answer.
When I learned to fly the Cessna 172 had not yet been designed or built, all we had for training airplanes were tail wheel airplanes.......see the problem I had? However it would appear that my training was not all tht substandard throughout my career because I have flown over thirty thousand hours.. .all accident free. What I was trying to say, is that now we have the tools and techniques to make flight training so much safer, and we would be nuts to move away from this. Sure, I agree that there is probably some idiots out there training people, but we get that in every profession. However the rules and regs make it harder for them to survive these days. No doubt, there was some people teaching flying in your day that should not have been there? |
Hi again Andy_P ::
A keyboard on the internet is often a piss poor means of communication as we do not have the one on one body language as part of the communication interaction. So..... let me have another go at this. What I was trying to say, is that now we have the tools and techniques to make flight training so much safer, and we would be nuts to move away from this. Andy if you go back to my opening post in this thread I was only trying to find out why a school would sell a Super Cub, rather than use it as a basic trainer......the Super Cub is a very basic trainer and in no way is it complex nor difficult to fly...period. It does however teach good hands and feet co-ordination during take off and landing compared to say a Cessna 150 /172. No doubt, there was some people teaching flying in your day that should not have been there? |
To all the readers of this thread
I am probably a bit over sensitive to what I perceive as instructor bashing so I apologize for the thread hijack :O I will step aside to avoid any further thread creep. |
Quote: Fact is, most flyers are weekend hobbyists and are never going to ever get to the standard you think Quote: So wrong! Decrying 'weekend hobbyists' as doomed to be carp aeroplane drivers would get you lynched by some of the guys I flew with. It's about attitude! And striving TO GET IT RIGHT! |
To all the readers of this thread I am probably a bit over sensitive to what I perceive as instructor bashing so I apologize for the thread hijack I will step aside to avoid any further thread creep BPF I do not think anyone has actually be critical of instructors. They operate within a framework set by up till now by the CAA/JAA and also operate with the technology available to day. In the past that technology was not available and i would not be surprised if the accident statistics were higher back then as there were not the pilot aids or situational awareness displays and terrain mapping as well as engine management and auto wing levellers available now. I am sure back then practically pilots HAD to be more creative, more hands on and more instinctive in their flying than nowadays. Society has also changed and we have without doubt become more of a mummy state with liability claims for anything and everything which IMO has changed instructing to more the paint by numbers rather than flying being a creative art! With the extra risks that may in small ways involved. BPF your comments on fast approaches being the cause of broken nose wheels which I totally disagree with is IMO indicative of the paint by numbers regime not a criticism of the modern instructors but a change caused by the mummy state mentality But that is not to do with the instructors as individuals but only the guidance and structures they have to work in! Maybe a swing to paint by numbers rather than the art of flying. Pace |
Some general thoughts...
Bad instructors, bad students and bad pilots exist within society just as frequently as there are bad drivers and inept/bad people in general. I once belonged to an organization who had a fleet of general aviation airplanes and tended to micromanage safety with regulation upon regulation. We had flight instructors and pilots from all walks of life. Not many were professional pilots or professional CFI's. One CFI was a retired dentist who had some strange ideas about how to operate an airplane. His credibility was very high among the pilots with minimal experience and/or ability. I'm not sure a student can properly recognize a good instructor when they see one. If one doesn't know right from wrong, how can the instructor be properly evaluated without constantly seeking the truth and applying the knowledge to the babble that exists? Kind of like the evening news and politics, which is how bad politicians (I know that is redundant) get elected again and again. :ugh: := :yuk: |
I see you guys liked my " Paint by numbers " analogy. :)
When we get to a point where there is a general consensus that flight training over all has been watered down to the point it is inferior to what it should and can be blaming flight instructors across the board is not the answer. The cause lies with the regulator who's responsibility it is to ensure a high quality of service from the flight training industry. It is that simple. If the regulators would quit " Word Salading " with more and more restructuring of regulations and rules that address the symptoms of the problem rather that fix the underlying disease general aviation would be healthier. Inertia is the real problem.......bureaucrats stuck in a intellectual vacuum. |
The situation can only get worse. As the old school guys who actually know things, drop off the radar, and are replaced by kindergarten teachers of "Paint by numbers". How can that be reversed? There is eventually no one who remembers what flying is supposed to be, we will be required, by ElfinSafety, to fit guards over rotating props, jet exhausts will have to be cooled down to room temp within the aircraft, etc. there is no end to what progressive regulation could do as they become more and more ignorant.
These Cirrus aircraft having so many chute pulls for things like radio failure is an example of a complete lack of any piloting skill at all. How much further down that road can you go? |
Has anyone actually pulled a Cirrus 'chute just because of radio failure?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:17. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.