Well we could ask the numpty who busted the Reds' display to see what his answer would be, but of course the rest of us are exercising our personal responsibility!! That doesn't change the need for trainign thoughm does it? Don't you acccept that training can sometimes be used to improve safety?

Andy :ok:

No it doesn't remove the need for training.

But it does leave the responsibility for obtaining that training where it belongs: With me.

If I don't learn how to use the AIS website or the GPS device(s) I use then I shouldn't (and wouldn't) blame someone else for that shortcoming.

Absolutely mate -- that's the law :)

Actually its a Java application which runs fine on my PowerMac and without a doubt is a good tool. It would be great, if between Ais and Avbrief you could get the narrow route data and plot it with NotamPlot

"Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Everyone is taught from the same syllabus, everyone knows what they need to be briefed on (WX and NOTAMs to name 2), so WTF is it "someone else's" fault when they fail to do it?"

If you havent been trained properly, not surprisingly you might want to blame the trainer.

Seems odd that if a number of people are saying they werent trained where to find this information, and how to disseminate the information in a user freindly way, instructors wouldnt want to sit up and take note.

It also seems odd when you would hope the bi-annual is there to keep pilots "within the system" that examiners would also not want to sit up and take note.

Turn your post around. The training industry can go on ignoring the problems and complaining it should all be down to personal responsibility when someone forgot to mention at the last bi-annual you should watch your speed a bit more closely on late final because you are risky "stalling in".

My training experience was similar to IO540's.

I had heard mention of notams during my training in TT manuals, but I naively assumed that they were either something from a bygone era, or just for airline pilots.

None were ever hung up on our club notice board, and no instructor ever showed my where to get them, or how to read them. In fact the first time I ever saw them, was on the day of my Skills Test when I had handed a badly printed fax page from an instructor and told to read them, in case the examiner asked me anything about them. I could barley make any sense out of the codes. I passed my Skills Test that day, not knowing where to get, or how to read Notams.

If fact it was through PPrune, and the help and support of other here, that I managed to educate myself in the use of notams. I now wouldn't dream of taking off without checking them first.

I had an interesting conversation with an instructor doing a checkout for me when I was joining a different club. He asked me if I had checked the notams. I quickly produced my narrow route brief, having circled the ones I thought relevant. He quickly produced his own printout, was rather surprised that my list contained some relevant notams that his didn't, and that my list was about 4 pages, while his was 1 & 1/2.

It turns out that he gets his notams from an unofficial source on the net, where he simply puts in his field of departure and destination. What he gets returned is the notams for the two airfields, but nothing enroute :=

If you are just bimbling in the local area, you'll probably get away with this. But if you want to go any distance, you need to be able to do a proper briefing.

I blame the instructors. I was churned out of the PPL training system, not knowing where or how to get Notams, and not knowing how to read them if I did find them. But worst of all, I was churned out not knowing their importance.

Fuji, I know from other threads that arguing is futile and/or you completely miss the point, so we'll have to agree to differ.

I'll take responsibilty for my knowing how to use the AIS website, the Met Office website, my GPS, my engine(s) and everything else a pilot might be expected to take responsibility for.

I'll also take responsibility for ensuring I complete my annual and bi-ennial (ftr, bi-annual means twice every 12 months) check flights and take any lessons learned away from those.

What I won't do is blame everyone else if/when there's a knowledge gap. This comes back to my point about taking personal responsibility.

BTW, you guys must go to some pretty ropey training establishments if everything you suggest they don't teach is not taught. If I were you I'd not go back but find somewhere decent. Vote with your wallet.

Rustle

"Fuji, I know from other threads that arguing is futile and/or you completely miss the point, so we'll have to agree to differ."

OK :)

It is a shame when others relate a similiar experience on this thread that notice is not taken.

There will always be a few arrogant pilots who intentionally ignore the rules. I take the view that is true of very few. If pilots are getting things wrong then I would far rather see if the "problem" can be rectified at the root. This has nothing to do with "blaming" anyone, but a lot to do with reviewing existing policy to see how this might be improved. If you reckon the training is perfect then indeed I have missed the point.

If you are happy to see more pilots prosecuted then I would also agree with your post.

rustle

I'll take responsibilty for my knowing how to use the AIS website, the Met Office website, my GPS, my engine(s)

Unfortunately:

A PPL student is not normally trained to use the AIS website.

A PPL student is not normally trained to get notams through any other route.

A PPL student is not normally trained to use the MO website.

A PPL student is not normally trained to use any internet weather source.

A PPL student is not normally trained to use a GPS :)

A PPL student is not normally trained anything about engine management; most training is done with mixture fully rich.

Very few PPLs read pprune.org.

Very few PPLs read flyer.co.uk.

Very few PPLs read any other pilot website.

So it's no good moaning that everybody should know this stuff. The pilot community on here (and other places where I guess you hang out) is almost completely un-representative of the private pilot population flying around.

Otherwise, I agree with you 100% ;)

To be practical about it, if the CAA was looking for a way to improve things, I would suggest that some action on the instructor front would be by far the most productive.

But surely you have read either the Trevor Thom manuals or the AFE / similar manuals, and then sat the PPL exams? Hopefully that would teach you the theory behind met, using the mixture, preflight nav planning etc. (Unless of course you just used the 'confuser' with the intention of only passing the exams.....not learning the useful/important stuff).

There is an awful lot to cover in the PPL sylabus as it is and when you consider the range of students who train for their PPL it is difficult to apply one method for all. What I did (and now teach) is to read through the theory books for both the exams and the flight breifings and then use these as the basis for any questions for the instructor. From an instructors point of view, judging 'depth of knowledge' is very difficult (anyone who has read Propellerhead will know what I mean...the bit about the Pitot tube)!

The written exams and the skills tests are then just methods for checking the 'basics' are there. We all then get our licences and the learning really begins! If the PPL were to teach absolutely everything there is to know about flying.....then the experience is going to take thousands of hours!


Going back to the earlier point...I think I shall be putting a stern letter in the post to my former driving instructor as I got caught speeding 4 weeks ago....couldn't possibly be my fault?

Trevor Thom wrote his book when there was no internet (practically!) so certainly offers no advice on how to get NOTAMs that way...

Err..No
When I learnt to fly in the mid 80's (and bear in mind I'm only 43) the "manuals" were Birch and Bransom Vol 1 and Cap 85. The latest and greatest computer on the block was the Sinclair spectrum and the Internet was a decade or so in the future. I also bought one of the first Gps units in 1991.
For Notams I used to visit the Clearance office of my local airport and in the office next door was the Met office where I could always get a personal briefing from a forcaster.
If you were trained in this era and only flew from a farm strip, unless you are technically savy it would be very easy to just sit there bemoaning the passing of met offices etc without realising that there are other alternatives.
What has the CAA done to alert the non computer owning, non magazine reading 1980's (or 50's/60's/70's) PPL to the change in ways of obtaining info?
It is possible that some might have assumed that the info had been abolished in government cuts.
Just playing devils advocate you understand ;)

"But surely you have read either the Trevor Thom manuals or the AFE / similar manuals, and then sat the PPL exams? Hopefully that would teach you the theory behind met, using the mixture, preflight nav planning etc."

So you would want your Doctor to treat you on the basis of the theory learnt from Gray's anatomy?

No one ever told me how to lean the mixture during my PPL. I have just looked back through my first log book - I had six different instructors. I thought you just left the mixture rich and whatever TT said, I wouldnt have been brave enough to tamper with it, even if I had grasp what TT had to say on the matter.

I admit weather came from the club notice board as did the NOTAMS.

Strange how many people have had and still have the same experience.

Anyone had their instructor chat to them about where, when and how they obtain weather and NOTAMS at their last biennial. (Thanks Rustle you are quite correct, but there is no hyphen :) :confused: ).

Training
 

10540 wrote:
A PPL student is not normally trained to use the AIS website.

A PPL student is not normally trained to get notams through any other route.

A PPL student is not normally trained to use the MO website.

A PPL student is not normally trained to use any internet weather source.

A PPL student is not normally trained to use a GPS :)

A PPL student is not normally trained anything about engine management; most training is done with mixture fully rich.

Very few PPLs read pprune.org.

Very few PPLs read flyer.co.uk.

Very few PPLs read any other pilot website.

As a low hours PPL student I am not very well qualified to comment on the above,but I do feel personal responsiblity has to play a part.
I have registered with the AIS website
I have not been trained yet on obtaining NOTAMS but thought this might be useful so worked it out myself with AIS and Notamplot.
I have also bought NavBox
I signed up with the Metoffice to get all my weather reports.
I am training myself in the use of GPS ( and will seek some official training)
I have asked about leaning techniques
I read as much stuff as I can about GA.
I wring out my instructor as much as he does me-at these prices I am not going to sit there like some nodding dog.
Modelman

"I wring out my instructor as much as he does me-at these prices I am not going to sit there like some nodding dog."

You are correct to do so, but why should you have to.

That is not personal responsibility - its not getting what you paid for.

A good instructor can tell you everything you need to know about obtaining NOTAMS and weather as the system currently stands in a one hour lecture.

So what happened to ground school?

So what happened to the personal responsibility of professional instructors who are willing to go on allowing PPLs to qualify without satisfactory ground school?

Yes. I suspect that had I not given a satisfactory answer I might not have made it as far as the aircraft.

When I re-qualified for my PPL in 1998, I was given no instruction on the use of a transponder. Only one of the school aircraft had one and the first time I flew this particular aircraft was on my solo qualifying Xcountry for which I had to fly through two AIAA's. I had previously only done one of the three legs with an instructor and this was not through either AIAA which, for that flight on a weekend, were not active anyway. My solo flight was in the week when they were active.

Fortunately, I had flown to Newcastle with a friend a few weeks before and had learned how to use the transponder by watching him and this helped me to get a superb RIS through both areas. But no thanks to my instructor.

On my last bi annual check which was with a CAA examiner, I was not asked about Notams and cannot remember them coming up in any of my previous ones.

My neighbour is currently learning to fly and I do not get the impression that Notams figure very strongly in his flight preparation either. In my view they should be treated as important as fuel before every flight, even if you are just planning to do circuits - it can be a bit embarrassing to suddenly find you cannot use the taxiway you are used to.

Anyone have any views on the effect of the regulatory regime on training?

A friend is training at the moment and it is rare to have the same instructor twice running. With such fragmentation it's no surprise that unexamined skillls get missed.

Part of the blame lies IMHO at the feet of the CAA for their decision years ago that FI's needed to hold a CPL or higher in order to be paid.

A PPL/FI is every bit as qualified to instruct as a CPL/FI yet he is unable to recover the costs of obtaining and maintaining his rating. If he wants to do so he must get a CPL and hold a Class 1. Net result? Instruction is effectively limited to those primarily interested in commercial aviation who are merely filling in while looking for a "proper" job, costs are higher than they need to be and instructors ditch their students at the sniff of a job or interview.

It does the "self improver" no favours either. If he were able to be paid for instructing as a PPL/FI he could defer his entry into CPL/ATPL training to a time when he had more experience, could gain more from the training, and have better prospects of getting a job on completion. He'd also avoid the expense of keeping his unused commercial ratings current while building his hours.

PPL training takes place in a benign environment (students don't fly in unsuitable conditions). It's not the same as Public Transport and shouldn't be subject to the same restrictions.

Mike

This time, exceptionally, I am not going to blame all the world's problems on the ATPL hour builders ;)

These are mostly relatively bright young men who do know how to use the internet - much more so than the older instructors who know as much about the internet as the average person of similar age (not a lot, usually). It would be trivial to get them to teach the material.

They have also (usually) sat the ATPL ground school which deals with weather pretty exhaustively. OK, it does it in a rather theoretical manner and again without teaching how to get the raw data via the internet (GFS in particular) but this is only a short step.

The problem is with the syllabus which is deliberately really really basic.

It is so backward that the mind boggles how much effort must go into keeping it so backward, and who bothers to keep up this pretence that "the olde ways are the best".

Fortunately for the CAA, when they want to prosecute somebody, they can use a GPS to find their way to the courtroom, they can use computers to type up their evidence, etc ;) Nothing backward in that.

Anybody with some sort of technical education, who enters PPL training, wonders where all this cr*p is coming from and how long they will have to put up with it.

The lack of GPS is the most obvious thing but that's because everybody knows about it, and most reasonably smart people use it elsewhere. But nobody outside aviation will know about internet notam and weather sources - unless they happen to read stuff like this.

The circular slide rule is the second one.

And quite right too.

One could include everything in the PPL and make it 200 hours.

The PPL does not inlcude aerobatics training. A pilot who gets their PPL and straight away purchases a zlin and promptly kills themselves can not blame the training industry for not providing aerobatic training in the basic PPL.

Smilarly, the pilot who trains in a C150 and purchases an M201 on PPL completion can not balme the trainig industry for being 50 miles behind the aircraft.

The PPL is designed to get a person to the standard that permits them to fly simple light aircraft while carrying passengers without endangering them. A big part of the course is Airmanship and a big part of Airmanship is not doing anything or using anything one is not happy with - Ask and instructor!

I agree that instructors are not teaching MET and NOTAM briefings correctly. There is much work required in that area. Part of the problem being that they were not shown it in the first place and thus have no idea themselves.

Clubs should NOT publish met or NOTAMS. Every pilot should get their own.

GPS is covered in a very basic way on the PPL. Why only this? Because there are such a variety of GPS uits available that it is futile. The CAA, the training organisations, the representative organisations (AOPA etc) and the GPS manufacturers all recomend that prior to using aviation units (hand held or otherwise) that training is obtained from a qualified instructor. If pilots ignore that information and get into trouble then it is clearly their own fault.

--------

I have no doubt that you were familiar with AICs and ther AIP when you were training and you know how important they are a part of flight preparation and planning. Everyone else should also and since all changes to AIS and met services are published in advance in AICs not to mention also in the AIP, there is absolutely no excuse regardles of what the pilot's age or experience.

-------

These days, many students eat the confuser rather than read the books. There lies part of te problem - learning answers is not good enough.

Regards,

DFC

DFC

I agree with much of what you say.

Of course the PPL should not get you to the stage you can fly aeros or complex or fast aircraft. IMO it should also not get you to the stage where you can set of for the South of France with complete confidence.

What it should do is get you to the stage where you can take on reasonably lengthy flights in the UK being safely able to handle an aircraft of the type on which you trained having properly briefed yourself on the weather and NOTAMS and in the full expectation you will not become one of the all too frequent infringers of CAS.

In the main I think the PPL achieves these objectives.

I think this thread has however "exposed" some serious deficiencies in the way in which pilots are taught to brief themselves prior to a flight. I also believe that it is down to the training industry to rectify these deficiences and not those being trained.

Not only does the training system need to be better (though I've only ever seen FI's showing the planning side properly), the information providers need to sharpen up their act.

NOTAM's are better than they used to be, though they are in no way perfect, Wx briefings aren't standardised and general route information is often sketchy unless you pay for it from a commercial provider.

All of these things should be combined for an easy to use system that gives clear information. A bit like the packs that are handed to commercial crews.

When this is done, then we will see less problems like idiots blundering into TRA's.

IMO it should also not get you to the stage where you can set of for the South of France with complete confidence.

Why not?

Flying in France is like flying in a graveyard, compared to much of the UK. It's also completely within the most basic PPL privileges.

If a PPL is not taught how to dig out a chart for area XXX, look at it, read it, work out a suitable (OCAS) route, and fly it, then he's been well ripped off.

This thread highlights the huge range in the quality of instruction in this country. That then means the panel examiners and the chief pilots should be doing more to ensure that instructors are telling PPL students where and how to get all the information needed to properly plan a flight. But I do think pilots are as much to blame as anyone. In my time as an instructor I saw all too many SF hirers who simply wanted to turn up and fire up and go. Persuading them to do proper pre flight planning was a constant battle. There are many places in the country where NOTAMs are rare and when combined with the frequency with which the average PPL flies, they maybe check the first few times but then give up because they never see anything that affects them.

A good example is the west coast of Scotland at the moment. Normally extremely quiet, but at the moment..... there's a war on. And the NOTAMs contains nuggets such as :

LIVE FIRING WILL TAKE PLACE WI AND ABOVE THE CONFINES OF EGD803 OUTSIDE PUBLISHED HOURS OF OPERATION. THIS AIRSPACE DOES NOT COMMAND DANGER AREA STATUS.

Quite how live firing doesn't command Danger Area Status is beyond me.

"Why not?

Flying in France is like flying in a graveyard, compared to much of the UK. It's also completely within the most basic PPL privileges."

Now come I0 do you really mean that?

1. You have got to get across the stream between us. Most clubs require a channel check out and many are uncomfortable when they first encounter the spacial effects you sometimes find over the channel,

2. As this thread has discussed many PPLs dont know where to find the UK NOTAMs - how on earth do they get on with the French ones,

3. Then there are the differences in airspace. Straight forward in theory - yes, enough to confuse a new PPL - I suspect so,

4. And then whilst we relish having no one to talk to, when they have always had some to talk to it is a bit disconcerting,

5. Of course they have to find the weather, and I said the south of france because we are talking about a days flying for many with a stop or two, and some high terrain,

I could go on at some length.

Remember they will not be flying airways.

In short, I am not saying that in theory they are not capable of making the journey, but I am saying there is enough there to make them think twice, and maybe even thrice.

As the hours and activity height are limited by the UK AIP, I can see why NOTAM'ed activity outwith those limits can't be encompassed as being within EGD803 (as it doesn't exist for the extra times or the extra airspace). Presumably the CAA have a constitutional reason why they can't grant it Temporary Segregated Airspace status (effectively a Danger Area). Perhaps they are awaiting the European airspace model of Single Skies ?? Or maybe because it's in Class G below FL245.

Hopefully the 'extra' activity takes place under appropriate safety measures such as 'Radar Clear Range' procedures :ok:

The recent changes to the Luton CZ will not appear on the CAA chart for ages.

I wonder what everyones views are to this contributing to airspace busts or whether the existing mechanism for promulgating these changes without up dating the charts is adequate?

Personally not too stressed about this as I am based nearby (live 2 miles from BNN) and well aware of it through the various announcements and have amended my charts by hand, plus it fills in a corner tucked underneath some other airspace so unlikely people will take a short-cut through this.

But, I guess it could also be seen as an accident waiting to happen if someone hasn't got the message about the new airspace and sees it as a handy gap on the chart in which to do some high-level work / aeros? The subsequent enquiry would be interesting but would probably put the blame on the pilot I guess...

Andy :ok:

Fuji

Flying in France is like flying in a graveyard, compared to much of the UK. It's also completely within the most basic PPL privileges."

Now come I0 do you really mean that?

I do actually mean that. I've flown there VFR a number of times, right across France. For notams you can use ais.org.uk - it's only the domestic (non international airport) airfield notams that don't come up on there, and one wouldn't be flying to any of those from the UK.

For weather, it's all the same sources (like the notams, on the internet, and that's probably the problem).

Note for the moderator:

As elsewhere (;)) this thread started because someone busted a TRA.

The discussion about AIS provision/presentation is not really relevant to that thread, as the TRA was in the NOTAMs.

Worthy as it is, all this discussion about AIS etc. is diluting the fact that someone was obviously not briefed appropriately and shouldn't have been where he/she was at that time.

Can the AIS/NOTAM bits of this thread be hived-off into a thread of their own, so that the discussion about infringing a TRA isn't lost in the noise?

TIA :)

I0540

Ok, sorry if I didnt take your comments seriously enough.

In my experience the questions you get from new PPLs about going to L2K for the first time never mind the south of France makes me feel on the whole they would not be comfortable with this sort of trip. I certainly would have hesitated when at that stage and indeed did so, although I managed to avoid the need to have anyone accompany me the first time :) :) !

Perhaps other new PPLs would take it on - I dont have enough experience of what others have done to reach a proper conclusion.

To stay on thread, obviously my point was that the lack of training about where to source weather and NOTAM information could in a similiar way result in airspace infringements - including danger areas etc and an uncomfortable interview ith DGAC.

If I get more than five min's to myself tonight I will do it. Just spent a good 40-odd mins' just reading the new posts from the last few hours and I am already late to go out!!!

If I am not too drunk later when I return I will give it a go then.

Fuji

I agree with you. I think it is semantics.

If you asked whether a PPL graduating from the present system should be confident about flying to say Biarritz the answer is a definite NO.

If you asked whether a PPL graduating from a modern training system which I'd like to see should be confident about flying to say Biarritz the answer is a definite YES.

BRL

I don't see the point in splitting up the thread because (as many here will agree) the busts are closely related to the wider picture of pilot training. Pilots are simply not (on the whole) being trained to check notams.

If one takes the view that ignorance is no excuse (which is valid, too) then there is never anything to discuss and nothing will never improve! The CAA may as well publish notams in a thick printed book, once a week, for £100. Perfectly reasonable - ignorance of the law is no excuse.

BRL

I second IO540 - I see no point in splitting this thread for the same reasons.

Save yourself a great deal of work :) :)


IO540

We agree!

FA/IO I knew you two would come to that conclusion - are you married to each other?

The reason I suggested a split in the thread is that now this thread's focus is AIS and briefing, whereas it should have remained focussed on the transgression of a TRA by a pilot.

I know you two like to think that it is AIS's fault that the pilot transgressed, but in reality the two things (briefing/transgression) are not that closely linked.

1. The TRA was in the NOTAMs.

2. Pilot either didn't check at all, changed routes without rechecking NOTAMs, or just missed the fecking great big TRA while planning.

Rustle

I am sorry we cant agree with you all the time. Lifes like that.

The interest on this forum is debating opinions.

I dont think either of us or a number of other posts think it is the AISs fault.

We have suggested it may be attributable to the training pilots receive regarding the sourcing of NOTAMs.

The poster explained he was "annoyed" by an aircraft interfering with an Arrows display. This in itself dloesnt leave a great deal to be debated - ah yes, we are all annoyed!

Of far greater interest is why these incidents are becoming more common. That is what has been debated. I can see absolutely no reason what so ever for splitting the thread which would lose the entire susbstance of the debate and the way it has evolved.

Sorry.

Agree.

Rustle,

I do not think that we would want to have a thred that simply slagged of a pilot for making an error. The whole ethos in aviation is that we are not afraid to talk about our errors, misunderstandings or whatever because the whole idea is to find the reason why that error or misunderstanding happened and to come up with ways that such an error or misunderstanding does not happen again.

To have 50 people slag off a pilot who made a mistake acheives nothing.

To debate the issues that cause so many pilots to infringe airspace or get lost (combine infringements with D+D lost reports) could lead us to the idea that something basic is not being done be it at the training stage or later.

Regards,

DFC

How different it is across the pond
 

I am reading this thread with great interest. Although originally from the UK, and having done some flying there, the vast majority (99%) of my flying has been in the US, and I now understand how spoiled we are here. My (perhaps incorrect) impression of the current state of UK private flying is that you are being regulated out of existence, the costs are skyrocketing, the CAA/Euro control seem intent on marginalising you and any possibilities of safe flying (like an instrument rating) are fast becoming unattainable. In addition you seem to have very poor access to information, and what little there is has to be paid for via premium rate numbers. This is not a dig at any one person, but at the seemingly poor state of affairs.

My experience here has been just the opposite, the system is setup to help the private pilot just as much as the heavy metal fliers, and information is available freely to encourage safe flying.

Just to rub it in, 'over here' we have a freephone number (1-800-wxbrief) to speak to a specialist briefer who can give you NOTAMS (local, distant, FDC), TFR's, weather, fight planning & filing and a hundred other useful bits of information. In addition there is the excellent NOAA WX site with real time Nexrad WX, AOPA real time flight planner, free access to DUATs at most FBO's and a whole bunch of other things that make it easy to find the information you need. I truly do not believe I could face flying in the UK again.

Not sure how the system could be fixed in the UK, it seems like control has been delegated to a bunch of faceless bureaucrats who are not accountable or elected by the people who pay their wages.

I just wish it was different, but I guess this is the reality of flying the the brave new Eurocontrol zone.

in reply to Tim CPL
 

well Tim, not much to do with my original thread, however since you mentioned the US, I may as well rant a bit, maybe aviation is better in the land of the free, lol.
However being British we are not allowed to live for longer than 6 months in the land of the free, even though, our forces are fighting alongside each other in the Middle East, We are not allowed to enter the worldwide " Green Card Lottery " to enter the land of the free, although, your welcomed with out streched arms to buy a holiday home / car / air craft. and all the associated services required to run them all, just don't stay 1 day over the 6 months, else you find out, it sure isn't the land of the free, after all.
End of Rant

Actually, Americans can't stay in the UK more than 6 months either :) It is not that difficult to get a working visa for the USA should you want to....And if you are Irish, you are automatically American....aren't you ;)