AAIB January 2017
HC
Couldn't agree more with your piano teacher I was just shocked that someone who has done a load of training has never been shown a quite common test issue. However all is well now as he knows what to do,
so another happy punter
Safe flying in the armchair
Couldn't agree more with your piano teacher I was just shocked that someone who has done a load of training has never been shown a quite common test issue. However all is well now as he knows what to do,
so another happy punter
Safe flying in the armchair
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
H500, I like very much your arguments about not announcing failures. Both HC and myself have been lucky that we were able to do just that in an FFS, thus completely mitigating the safety issue. I think that is one of the reasons EASA-FCL requires recurrent training and checks to be done in the FFS. I sympathise with the smaller helicopter world where this is not available.
Having said that, training in the FFS will never build the same degree of confidence as doing it in the Helicopter. What you are doing, pound for pound, is ultimately probably more beneficial for the student than the FFS, accepting of course, that the aircraft is limited in the failures you can reproduce.
A big respect from me for your honesty and the positive approach you have taken from what at times, has been harsh critique from me. I would like to be trained by you! I don't ever say that lightly.
Having said that, training in the FFS will never build the same degree of confidence as doing it in the Helicopter. What you are doing, pound for pound, is ultimately probably more beneficial for the student than the FFS, accepting of course, that the aircraft is limited in the failures you can reproduce.
A big respect from me for your honesty and the positive approach you have taken from what at times, has been harsh critique from me. I would like to be trained by you! I don't ever say that lightly.
Can't quite let this cobblers go unanswered
HC I presume you are not a FI either from this statement.
An exercise is briefed on the ground, demonstrated in the air and then the student has a go - what are the chances of him perfectly flying the manoeuvre? Somewhere between nil and bugger-all.
So now the real skill of the instructor - the fault analysis - begins, where you identify what wasn't correct (and praise what was) then give corrective guidance (or if required another demonstration) then the student has another go - that process continues until the student has reached the required standard. It is often poor control action, poor trimming technique or simply looking in the wrong place for the attitude/speed/height/power etc.
In an ideal world, you want the student to begin to self-debrief because if he realises what mistakes he has made it is much easier for him to avoid them the next time (however the instructor will still need to fine tune the corrective process).
The idea that only perfect reproductions of an exercise are valuable when learning is total fallacy - I learned to play the piano by making mistakes and then having them corrected and latterly by recognising them myself.
What I think your piano teacher meant was that, one a skill is learned correctly, the repetition of that exercise/skill is positive reinforcement and therefore a good thing.
if the student has been taught this before then it is perfectly fine to introduce it unbriefed - if he asks for a lesson on TR malfs then of course you would brief it on the ground before hand. You just don't seem to get the context in which H500 was operating.
Firstly, the student asked for GH revision and simulated emergencies - it was REVISION and so he should be expected to deal with whatever was given without pre-briefing (remember he was going for CPL again shortly, do they brief every practice emergency on the check ride?
Secondly, although the primary part of the sortie wasn't so hot, it is possible to recover the student's self confidence by giving him another exercise to do (practice stuck pedals) - if he does it well there is something positive for the debrief. It didn't work out that way but sometimes the student just has a bad day and you have to drag what positives you can out of the sortie to keep his morale up and (commercially) make him want to come back for more.
Giving the student time to consider the stuck pedals during the approach is fine - there was nothing unsafe as it wasn't real and H500 could have taken his feet off at any time. Again - CONTEXT - not a basic student but someone going for CPL to fly commercially should at least have an idea of what to do if not the fully finessed technique to a smooth landing. What would have happened on his check ride if the examiner had given him that - instant fail I suggest. What about if it happened to him for real on a commercial job with pax???
H500 did him a big favour for either scenario - he identified a big gap in his knowledge/retention and I suspect fully rebriefed him on the ground. On the next sortie with this chap, I would have revised the emergency and got him to fly the same approach to landing but now with the correct technique.
At some stage during training, ESPECIALLY when you are preparing a student for a check ride, you have to test them, unbriefed, because that is what will happen on the check and that is what happens in real life.
If neither of you can see my viewpoint then you really don't have the wide range of instructional experience that you think - Of my total flying, just short of 4000 hours are instructional time in a very wide variety of roles and conditions but you will surely see that as bragging rather than stating facts.
I suspect many fully civilian FIs would be horrified to hear you claim a TRI ticket was equivalent to a FI course pass - just how much demonstration flying and fault analysis do you do on a TRI course?
I suspect neither of you do any general handling (basic and advanced transitions, quickstops, basic and advanced autos, PFLS etc etc) instruction of the type that has been my bread and butter since I did my QHI course and is what a FI will have done on his FI course - it is also what you are critiquing H500 for.
Type rating instruction in a FFS (and yes, I have done that as well) is a completely different kettle of fish but the same principles apply - in my world it is something only a QHI/FI would deliver.
flying a training exercise incorrectly just reinforces the mistake and drains confidence, whereas flying it correctly builds confidence and "burns the right neural pathways". So it is better to be fairly sure the excercise will be flown correctly and this is best done by briefing thoroughly on the ground beforehand.
An exercise is briefed on the ground, demonstrated in the air and then the student has a go - what are the chances of him perfectly flying the manoeuvre? Somewhere between nil and bugger-all.
So now the real skill of the instructor - the fault analysis - begins, where you identify what wasn't correct (and praise what was) then give corrective guidance (or if required another demonstration) then the student has another go - that process continues until the student has reached the required standard. It is often poor control action, poor trimming technique or simply looking in the wrong place for the attitude/speed/height/power etc.
In an ideal world, you want the student to begin to self-debrief because if he realises what mistakes he has made it is much easier for him to avoid them the next time (however the instructor will still need to fine tune the corrective process).
The idea that only perfect reproductions of an exercise are valuable when learning is total fallacy - I learned to play the piano by making mistakes and then having them corrected and latterly by recognising them myself.
What I think your piano teacher meant was that, one a skill is learned correctly, the repetition of that exercise/skill is positive reinforcement and therefore a good thing.
But with something like stuck pedals where there is not such a sense of urgency, on a training flight it is better done having reviewed the excercise in the classroom first.
An Instructor described taking a student on a sortie, the aim of which was to develop VOR skills, the Instructor told the student during briefing that they may do some malfunctions. He did not brief the malfunctions and therefore, arguably, compromised the requirement for essential safety brief. During the flight student was behind the aircraft so to wake him up the pedals were simulated seized down 100 feet of the ground despite the student admitting by 500 feet he had no idea how to land the helicopter.
YOU robustly defended that Instructor. Given all the sound and healthy teaching and learning principles you state you follow, buried in the Crab-Rhetoric of your posts, how can you rationalise now this scenario.
YOU robustly defended that Instructor. Given all the sound and healthy teaching and learning principles you state you follow, buried in the Crab-Rhetoric of your posts, how can you rationalise now this scenario.
Secondly, although the primary part of the sortie wasn't so hot, it is possible to recover the student's self confidence by giving him another exercise to do (practice stuck pedals) - if he does it well there is something positive for the debrief. It didn't work out that way but sometimes the student just has a bad day and you have to drag what positives you can out of the sortie to keep his morale up and (commercially) make him want to come back for more.
Giving the student time to consider the stuck pedals during the approach is fine - there was nothing unsafe as it wasn't real and H500 could have taken his feet off at any time. Again - CONTEXT - not a basic student but someone going for CPL to fly commercially should at least have an idea of what to do if not the fully finessed technique to a smooth landing. What would have happened on his check ride if the examiner had given him that - instant fail I suggest. What about if it happened to him for real on a commercial job with pax???
H500 did him a big favour for either scenario - he identified a big gap in his knowledge/retention and I suspect fully rebriefed him on the ground. On the next sortie with this chap, I would have revised the emergency and got him to fly the same approach to landing but now with the correct technique.
At some stage during training, ESPECIALLY when you are preparing a student for a check ride, you have to test them, unbriefed, because that is what will happen on the check and that is what happens in real life.
If neither of you can see my viewpoint then you really don't have the wide range of instructional experience that you think - Of my total flying, just short of 4000 hours are instructional time in a very wide variety of roles and conditions but you will surely see that as bragging rather than stating facts.
I suspect many fully civilian FIs would be horrified to hear you claim a TRI ticket was equivalent to a FI course pass - just how much demonstration flying and fault analysis do you do on a TRI course?
I suspect neither of you do any general handling (basic and advanced transitions, quickstops, basic and advanced autos, PFLS etc etc) instruction of the type that has been my bread and butter since I did my QHI course and is what a FI will have done on his FI course - it is also what you are critiquing H500 for.
Type rating instruction in a FFS (and yes, I have done that as well) is a completely different kettle of fish but the same principles apply - in my world it is something only a QHI/FI would deliver.
Crab,
1/ I am not an FI on helicopters but I have a lot of experience of ab initio flying training, and a fair bit of instructor training and testing.
2/ I never said a TRI ticket was equivalent to an FI course pass. You are making it up.
I'll agree that the amount of basic instructional technique on a TRI course is pretty minimal - fortunately I had my instructional background to fall back on.
3/ You have 4000 hours of something. So what? I know folk with 15,000hrs who were not very good pilots. Perhaps you have 4000 hrs of doing it very badly - who knows?
4/ Your comprehension of written language seems limited. I said that when practising a manoeuvre one should try to maximise the number of times it was carried out correctly. That is not the same thing that you imply - that it should be perfect first time. Obviously that is unlikely to be the case. My point is that it is the instructor's job to help the student get it right. Presenting the student with an exercise you don't know if he can do and which in fact he doesn't know how to do, is unhelpful for any purpose other than crushing him.
5/ Yes unannounced checking of ability to perform an excercise is part of preparation for testing, but only in a controlled environment where you are familiar with the student's status. Randomly carrying it out on a PPL who is struggling is not helpful.
1/ I am not an FI on helicopters but I have a lot of experience of ab initio flying training, and a fair bit of instructor training and testing.
2/ I never said a TRI ticket was equivalent to an FI course pass. You are making it up.
I'll agree that the amount of basic instructional technique on a TRI course is pretty minimal - fortunately I had my instructional background to fall back on.
3/ You have 4000 hours of something. So what? I know folk with 15,000hrs who were not very good pilots. Perhaps you have 4000 hrs of doing it very badly - who knows?
4/ Your comprehension of written language seems limited. I said that when practising a manoeuvre one should try to maximise the number of times it was carried out correctly. That is not the same thing that you imply - that it should be perfect first time. Obviously that is unlikely to be the case. My point is that it is the instructor's job to help the student get it right. Presenting the student with an exercise you don't know if he can do and which in fact he doesn't know how to do, is unhelpful for any purpose other than crushing him.
5/ Yes unannounced checking of ability to perform an excercise is part of preparation for testing, but only in a controlled environment where you are familiar with the student's status. Randomly carrying it out on a PPL who is struggling is not helpful.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
CRAB
STUDENT-01 - gets a comprehensive brief on TR malfunctions, including symptoms, diagnosis, considerations and procedures backed up with the essential safety brief. Has a coffee, goes flying, sees an expert demo, has his own goes at the exercise during which the instructor encourages him to recall elements of the brief where necessary to improve his performance.
STUDENT-02 - receives a brief on VOR navigation as he has asked for, receives no brief on the TR malfunction, has a coffee, goes flying and struggles a bit with the VOR. Instructor thinks, I know we will do something different (for all the good reasons and is a good thing to do if the current exercise is not progressing without a rebriefing) however the exercise the FI chooses just bombs with the student from the outset, so much so he fails to even realise the intention behind the instructor placing his feet on the pedals. Actually asks him to remove them. In the dynamic environment of an approach then loses the plot and can't remember how to deal with the malfunction.
THE QUESTION FOR YOU setting aside the good intentions of the Instructor. DO you believe if Student-02 had the brief that Student-01 received, he would have gained more or less for the money he spent on his flying?
Finally, if you truly believe that every experienced pilot should be capable of managing a TR malfunction without briefing and practice beforehand, can you please explain why the Authority specify this briefing and training in the OPC cycle.
Bear in mind, before you answer, that the poor PPL is not afforded this training before his LPC unless he is wise enough to ask and pay for it.
Sadly if he asked you, or worse, was dumb enough just to pay you, he might not get a brief and in your own time you will tut tut at his **** performance and be back ranting here about how all pilots shall manage these malfunctions without briefing or training and this why we are all crashing.
In a rather clumsy roundabout way you have accidentally described exactly WHAT is wrong in the GA world that leads to lack of training and accidents.
Try preaching "oh yes, you need frequent recurrent training just to stay competent" instead of trying to tell us that he should not need training cos he should be able to do all the malfunctions otherwise what happens if the enemy appear and start shooting at him in a cloud, up on a Sunday, and he will die.
If you really are a great Instructor you should be promoting the very need for your existence.
STUDENT-01 - gets a comprehensive brief on TR malfunctions, including symptoms, diagnosis, considerations and procedures backed up with the essential safety brief. Has a coffee, goes flying, sees an expert demo, has his own goes at the exercise during which the instructor encourages him to recall elements of the brief where necessary to improve his performance.
STUDENT-02 - receives a brief on VOR navigation as he has asked for, receives no brief on the TR malfunction, has a coffee, goes flying and struggles a bit with the VOR. Instructor thinks, I know we will do something different (for all the good reasons and is a good thing to do if the current exercise is not progressing without a rebriefing) however the exercise the FI chooses just bombs with the student from the outset, so much so he fails to even realise the intention behind the instructor placing his feet on the pedals. Actually asks him to remove them. In the dynamic environment of an approach then loses the plot and can't remember how to deal with the malfunction.
THE QUESTION FOR YOU setting aside the good intentions of the Instructor. DO you believe if Student-02 had the brief that Student-01 received, he would have gained more or less for the money he spent on his flying?
Finally, if you truly believe that every experienced pilot should be capable of managing a TR malfunction without briefing and practice beforehand, can you please explain why the Authority specify this briefing and training in the OPC cycle.
Bear in mind, before you answer, that the poor PPL is not afforded this training before his LPC unless he is wise enough to ask and pay for it.
Sadly if he asked you, or worse, was dumb enough just to pay you, he might not get a brief and in your own time you will tut tut at his **** performance and be back ranting here about how all pilots shall manage these malfunctions without briefing or training and this why we are all crashing.
In a rather clumsy roundabout way you have accidentally described exactly WHAT is wrong in the GA world that leads to lack of training and accidents.
Try preaching "oh yes, you need frequent recurrent training just to stay competent" instead of trying to tell us that he should not need training cos he should be able to do all the malfunctions otherwise what happens if the enemy appear and start shooting at him in a cloud, up on a Sunday, and he will die.
If you really are a great Instructor you should be promoting the very need for your existence.
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 25th Jan 2017 at 18:00.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
CRAB - you ask the question - do they BRIEF every exercise on the check ride.
This is EXAMINING you are talking about. The Examiner, during the brief which should follow the very strict guidelines in the Examiners Handbook and/or STDS Doc 24 H, should establish an environment conducive to a successful test.
Part of that requirement involves, by Q and A session establishing if the candidate understands the exercises to be performed. The Examiner MUST give him the exercise list. This is not a training brief and could lead to the Test/Check not even being performed if the candidate demonstrates he is not ready/adequately prepared for the Test.
If done in the aircraft, an essential safety brief must be given. This will naturally entail responsibilities, call outs and by necessity, an agreement of exactly what the student intend to to for each CRITICAL procedure.
Once flying, clear guidelines are in place to allow the Examiner latitude to retest an item in flight. Essentially, if the candidates does not demonstrate competency on the first attempt, providing he can self diagnose his mistakes, he gets a second attempt. However the Examiner is permitted further latitude for certain emergencies like autos, to offer some guidance to improve attempt number 2. Now does this sound familiar to you? Of course it does because this appears, from your own posts, how you train and instruct.
Unfortunately what I am describing is TESTING.
A Question for you, are you an authorised FE, TRE or SFE?
This is EXAMINING you are talking about. The Examiner, during the brief which should follow the very strict guidelines in the Examiners Handbook and/or STDS Doc 24 H, should establish an environment conducive to a successful test.
Part of that requirement involves, by Q and A session establishing if the candidate understands the exercises to be performed. The Examiner MUST give him the exercise list. This is not a training brief and could lead to the Test/Check not even being performed if the candidate demonstrates he is not ready/adequately prepared for the Test.
If done in the aircraft, an essential safety brief must be given. This will naturally entail responsibilities, call outs and by necessity, an agreement of exactly what the student intend to to for each CRITICAL procedure.
Once flying, clear guidelines are in place to allow the Examiner latitude to retest an item in flight. Essentially, if the candidates does not demonstrate competency on the first attempt, providing he can self diagnose his mistakes, he gets a second attempt. However the Examiner is permitted further latitude for certain emergencies like autos, to offer some guidance to improve attempt number 2. Now does this sound familiar to you? Of course it does because this appears, from your own posts, how you train and instruct.
Unfortunately what I am describing is TESTING.
A Question for you, are you an authorised FE, TRE or SFE?
HC you wrote
so you have the first statement from your piano teacher which is correct if it is a piece/skill that has been correctly taught and mastered - thereafter correct repetition of the exercise builds muscle memory/neural pathways.
Your second statement about flying training is selective since the student must learn the technique/manoeuvre first which will inevitably involve making mistakes - that is the way it works, as you seem to agree.
Only being 'fairly sure' by asking questions on the ground is far from the guarantee that the student will perform perfectly and therefore reinforce his training - you will only know that when he has performed. It is not representative of the real world to expect answering questions on the ground to correlate to performance in the air, one is a test of memory, the other is a physically and mentally complex task.
read your paragraph above - that is not what you said.
You are assuming that H500 didn't have any knowledge of the student's history - also he must have covered the stuck pedals because it is in the syllabus. It doesn't 'crush' the student to make a mistake - as I said before you take any positives from it and build his confidence with extra training.
As discussed, he was known to H500 and he was a CPL trained (albeit failed) so struggling PPL is just an emotive description you have invented to make your point.
DB
No, because the sortie was for VOR training and GH/emergencies - the brief required to cover all available scenarios would have taken days. If the student had asked for a dedicated TR malfunctions sortie then I am sure that is exactly what H500 would have given him - but that wasn't what he asked and paid for. Frankly a bit of a pointless question.
Yes that covers the exercises and is eminently sensible since the examiner must be sure tyhe student has completed the required training. However that doesn't answer the question about practice emergencies - certainly the brief in the event of real emergencies must be included plus how the examiner will announce a practice emergency but, other than a fire which ISTR is mandatory and therefore expected, will the examiner tell the student what practice emergencies he will initiate?
Duh - the mandated briefing and training is to make sure that experienced pilots can manage a TR malfunction - that is the whole point. H500 was essentially checking that the student knew the drill - he had after all attempted CPL before so must have completed the training more than once - the fact that he didn't know the drill just pointed the way forward for the next sortie - revision of TR malfs and maybe more VOR after that.
I didn't say I instruct this way on all sorties - that is your skewed perspective on the different types of flight I described in earlier posts, from basic student to front-line pilot and I thought it was crystal clear that they would be conducted differently.
I am not a civilian authorised anything but I have been a senior examiner for many years as well as an IRE conducting procedural IRTs (mil IR) and a flight and squadron training officer and a CFS agent. Most of that won't mean much to you but it is the mil equivalent of your FE, TRE and SFE.
This really is getting very tedious as you both seem to want to deny any instructional skills on my part personally or the military generally.
You go and do it your way and I will carry on doing it mine - we will just have to agree to differ but I won't slag off someone like H500 just because he posts something that isn't 100% the way I think it should be done, especially if I don't know him or the context in which he is doing his job - something you both seem happy to do.
My piano teacher used to tell me that "practising" was only accomplished when the piece was played correctly. If it was incorrectly played it didn't count. And thus it is with flying - flying a training exercise incorrectly just reinforces the mistake and drains confidence, whereas flying it correctly builds confidence and "burns the right neural pathways". So it is better to be fairly sure the excercise will be flown correctly and this is best done by briefing thoroughly on the ground beforehand.
Your second statement about flying training is selective since the student must learn the technique/manoeuvre first which will inevitably involve making mistakes - that is the way it works, as you seem to agree.
Only being 'fairly sure' by asking questions on the ground is far from the guarantee that the student will perform perfectly and therefore reinforce his training - you will only know that when he has performed. It is not representative of the real world to expect answering questions on the ground to correlate to performance in the air, one is a test of memory, the other is a physically and mentally complex task.
I said that when practising a manoeuvre one should try to maximise the number of times it was carried out correctly.
Presenting the student with an exercise you don't know if he can do and which in fact he doesn't know how to do, is unhelpful for any purpose other than crushing him.
5/ Yes unannounced checking of ability to perform an excercise is part of preparation for testing, but only in a controlled environment where you are familiar with the student's status. Randomly carrying it out on a PPL who is struggling is not helpful.
DB
THE QUESTION FOR YOU setting aside the good intentions of the Instructor. DO you believe if Student-02 had the brief that Student-01 received, he would have gained more or less for the money he spent on his flying?
Part of that requirement involves, by Q and A session establishing if the candidate understands the exercises to be performed. The Examiner MUST give him the exercise list. This is not a training brief and could lead to the Test/Check not even being performed if the candidate demonstrates he is not ready/adequately prepared for the Test.
Finally, if you truly believe that every experienced pilot should be capable of managing a TR malfunction without briefing and practice beforehand, can you please explain why the Authority specify this briefing and training in the OPC cycle.
Once flying, clear guidelines are in place to allow the Examiner latitude to retest an item in flight. Essentially, if the candidates does not demonstrate competency on the first attempt, providing he can self diagnose his mistakes, he gets a second attempt. However the Examiner is permitted further latitude for certain emergencies like autos, to offer some guidance to improve attempt number 2. Now does this sound familiar to you? Of course it does because this appears, from your own posts, how you train and instruct.
I am not a civilian authorised anything but I have been a senior examiner for many years as well as an IRE conducting procedural IRTs (mil IR) and a flight and squadron training officer and a CFS agent. Most of that won't mean much to you but it is the mil equivalent of your FE, TRE and SFE.
This really is getting very tedious as you both seem to want to deny any instructional skills on my part personally or the military generally.
You go and do it your way and I will carry on doing it mine - we will just have to agree to differ but I won't slag off someone like H500 just because he posts something that isn't 100% the way I think it should be done, especially if I don't know him or the context in which he is doing his job - something you both seem happy to do.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Ahh, you are not an EASA authorised Instructor or Examiner. And yet you have spent countless posts telling us how to do it. Military style!
Unbelievabubble!
Just so you get some idea what civvy street is really like. I put my hand up to be a TRE(H). It took the best part of 2 years from the start of my training to get the Authorisation. First CRMI, followed by six months on the line settling down. Then TRI course. In total, including the mentoring, about 6 months. Six more months settling down in that role. Then came the TRE Stanadardisation course, I think 3 weeks in total including standardisation. 10 seupervised checks. 5 mentored Checks. Took about 4 months followed finally by the Authorisation. I CHECKED MY LOG. THE TOTAL HOURS SPENT TRAINING TRI AUTH 86 AND CHECKING BEFORE TRE Authorisation, 226. That's a lot more intensive than the FI course.
I am sure you will retort with some smart Alec response to that but don't think that a heavy helicopter TRI/TRE is handed out Like sweets.
I was laughing at your lack of understanding of the depth and complexity involved in modern civilian CAT training. Now I know why. You think you know it all but many of us have been on both sides, mil and civvy unlike you.
Can you even imagine what you would feel like if a Civilian Instructor tried to tell you how you should have done your job in the Military. Can you even comprehend what you have done on this thread.
A man with no formal qualifications in iCivilian life telling everyone with those qualifications how we should be doing our jobs. Mocking the status of the TRI having absolutely NO IDEA what it involves. Ho ho ho what a joke.
now I have nothing more to say especially as your warped logic can't infest our civvy system Just yet.
DB out
Unbelievabubble!
Just so you get some idea what civvy street is really like. I put my hand up to be a TRE(H). It took the best part of 2 years from the start of my training to get the Authorisation. First CRMI, followed by six months on the line settling down. Then TRI course. In total, including the mentoring, about 6 months. Six more months settling down in that role. Then came the TRE Stanadardisation course, I think 3 weeks in total including standardisation. 10 seupervised checks. 5 mentored Checks. Took about 4 months followed finally by the Authorisation. I CHECKED MY LOG. THE TOTAL HOURS SPENT TRAINING TRI AUTH 86 AND CHECKING BEFORE TRE Authorisation, 226. That's a lot more intensive than the FI course.
I am sure you will retort with some smart Alec response to that but don't think that a heavy helicopter TRI/TRE is handed out Like sweets.
I was laughing at your lack of understanding of the depth and complexity involved in modern civilian CAT training. Now I know why. You think you know it all but many of us have been on both sides, mil and civvy unlike you.
Can you even imagine what you would feel like if a Civilian Instructor tried to tell you how you should have done your job in the Military. Can you even comprehend what you have done on this thread.
A man with no formal qualifications in iCivilian life telling everyone with those qualifications how we should be doing our jobs. Mocking the status of the TRI having absolutely NO IDEA what it involves. Ho ho ho what a joke.
now I have nothing more to say especially as your warped logic can't infest our civvy system Just yet.
DB out
DB I don't think we need worry, Crab has fully briefed and demonstrated to the entire forum his way of doing things and will be judged by his peers. So our work here is done!
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Middle England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it over?
I will now admit that I don't know what quite a few of your acronyms stand for.
Somehow glad I'm just a lowly PPL with a day job.
All in all, makes me think my instructor struck a really good balance :-)
Somehow glad I'm just a lowly PPL with a day job.
All in all, makes me think my instructor struck a really good balance :-)
Oh dear DB, now who is on a FIGJAM ego runaway (F88k I'm Good Just Ask Me).
I won't bore you with a list of the hundereds of check rides I have done to confirm my abilities as a QHI nor the extensive range of subjects and disciplines I have taught.
You seem very happy to criticise how Flying Instruction is done when you haven't actually done it yourself and are not qualified to do so - therefore I know exactly what it feels like to be told to suck eggs by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
Anyway, end of transmission - I am off skiing in the sunshine again today
I won't bore you with a list of the hundereds of check rides I have done to confirm my abilities as a QHI nor the extensive range of subjects and disciplines I have taught.
You seem very happy to criticise how Flying Instruction is done when you haven't actually done it yourself and are not qualified to do so - therefore I know exactly what it feels like to be told to suck eggs by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
Anyway, end of transmission - I am off skiing in the sunshine again today
Hughes 500. That's a very magnanimous invitation. You could get all three of them together for a group hug ��
Just make sure there is a video camera on the wall so we can all be entertained.
Just make sure there is a video camera on the wall so we can all be entertained.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
EGO
CRAB - I think if you check all my post I don't claim to be good or bad at fulfilling the functions of mt Licence and Authorisations.
I hope I have demonstrated that I do have a reasonable grasp of the rules and guidelines I am compelled to follow. That's a completely different thing.
H500 thanks for the invite and be sure I will take you up on it. The same applies to you. We are in Malta. The only a helicopter AOC here. It's an interesting place. We do EMS at the moment but probably expanding soon into O&G and some PAX work. If you fancy a cheap holiday we will host and look after you.
For your original post I can probably see how it happened as I described above. The poor guys struggles with the briefed exercise so to decompress you lighten the mood and change the plan and on that occasion it initially didnt work out.
Like I said, as TRIs in the heavy world we are better off with the FFS for this but difficult for you in the smaller world. I always say, the most affordable segment of helicopter aviation is generally in most respects the most difficult to deliver.
It's been a good discussion though and surely CRAB is an excellent instructor in his current world. If we could get him to buy into the CAT system a little bit more we we would all benefit more from his contribution. Just my opinion.
DB
I hope I have demonstrated that I do have a reasonable grasp of the rules and guidelines I am compelled to follow. That's a completely different thing.
H500 thanks for the invite and be sure I will take you up on it. The same applies to you. We are in Malta. The only a helicopter AOC here. It's an interesting place. We do EMS at the moment but probably expanding soon into O&G and some PAX work. If you fancy a cheap holiday we will host and look after you.
For your original post I can probably see how it happened as I described above. The poor guys struggles with the briefed exercise so to decompress you lighten the mood and change the plan and on that occasion it initially didnt work out.
Like I said, as TRIs in the heavy world we are better off with the FFS for this but difficult for you in the smaller world. I always say, the most affordable segment of helicopter aviation is generally in most respects the most difficult to deliver.
It's been a good discussion though and surely CRAB is an excellent instructor in his current world. If we could get him to buy into the CAT system a little bit more we we would all benefit more from his contribution. Just my opinion.
DB
It was another great day's skiing in glorious sunshine and pretty decent snow in the French Alps again by the way
H500 - might just surprise you with a visit to Dunkeswell sometime
DB and HC - an interesting debate with no real solution
H500 - might just surprise you with a visit to Dunkeswell sometime
DB and HC - an interesting debate with no real solution
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
HI CRAB - I would swap your skiing for me siting here ploughing through work and distracting myself with PPRUNE. I spent 10 days in Whistler at NY and it was awesome. Skiing from lift open until lift closed. Cold though with some days at -20 I am jealous!
Where are you by the way?
Where are you by the way?
St Jean D'Aulpes so access to whole of Porte de Soleil ski area.