Vuichard again
Chief Bottle Washer
There are a number of experienced and seasoned helicopter pilots here who have succinctly pointed out that the FAA is not always the font of all knowledge!
Robbiee and Rotorbee I would suggest that both of you take this quote and have a good look in a mirror; the first line applies to you in your dogmatic abuse of [email protected] for his reasoned explanations.
There are a number of experienced and seasoned helicopter pilots here who have succinctly pointed out that the FAA is not always the font of all knowledge!
There are a number of experienced and seasoned helicopter pilots here who have succinctly pointed out that the FAA is not always the font of all knowledge!
Chief Bottle Washer
Rotrbee - when a condition is given an acronym - VRS, LTE etc, it is usually because it has caused enough accidents for the authorities to need to investigate and highlight a hazardous condition.
That is how the term SWP should have been used - without confusing it with VRS - so that pilots clearly understood how easy it is to run out of power in the OGE environment.
It is a dangerous condition, especially to low time pilots - hence me banging on about it - I try to take the promotion and promulgation of Flight Safety issues seriously since it was part of my job when I was flying professionally and I had a duty of care to my Squadron pilots.
That is how the term SWP should have been used - without confusing it with VRS - so that pilots clearly understood how easy it is to run out of power in the OGE environment.
It is a dangerous condition, especially to low time pilots - hence me banging on about it - I try to take the promotion and promulgation of Flight Safety issues seriously since it was part of my job when I was flying professionally and I had a duty of care to my Squadron pilots.
Hey Crab, you have my support I am sure your posts have helped many people think about what they do / dont do. Certainly helped me pass on information to my students. I may have 33 years and 9000 hours under my belt but that doesnt mean I stop learning ( hint to some on here ). Perhaps some should stopping arguing about terminology and wind their neck in.
Hughes500 - 
agreed , the day you stop learning is the day you should stop flying
agreed , the day you stop learning is the day you should stop flying
Crab, I totally agree with you and SWP should have been used correctly, no argument there. I do understand you banging out about it and your commitment to flight safety. I never doubted that and I applaud you for it. And thanks in part to you, I do understand the difference of the terms. I was aware of the different flight conditions since being a student pilot, but the confusion in terms, only came to my attention, when I came back to Europe.
But I want to make two points for the general discussion.
One: The question is, what do we do now, since the "SWP" is now a contaminated acronym/term. Because it does matter, what overpitching/SWEP is called in the future, not to create another confusion.
For many European pilots, SWP is an US-term that the guys over the pond got wrong. Whenever I had this discussion, SWP was not used correctly, only that it is what we in Europe call VRS. Nothing to do with overpitching or running out of power. Therefore introducing SWP would be a new term for many pilots here and since many think that the FAA is a bunch of amateurs, it would dead from the start.
Two: The FAA is not a bunch of morons or amateurs (that is absolutely not against you, Crab, but I heard it too often and it annoys me quite a bit and I do understand Robbie, why he gets so fired up). In Europe many think, that in the US you get cheap training, therefore it is bad. Nothing could be further from the truth. That the cost of flight training is lower, has nothing to do with less work you have to do to become a proficient pilot. It is in part economics of scale, the way the US finances their system and the training philosophy. Whenever I had to deal with the FAA, I found them extremely helpful and they would do anything possible to solve my problem. One of them even called me in Europe to help me to get my CFI renewed, so I did not have to fly to the next FSDO (that was in the last century). He did not have to do it. I don't think, I would ever gotten that kind of commitment from any CAA in Europe I know of. I have only the highest regard for the FAA and their people and I think many European pilots, who have been trained under the FAA system, agree with me. You may think I exaggerate, but a Swiss pilot mocked US pilots in a newspaper recently for their training, since he/she was flying in the Alps and for US-pilots in Arizona(!) the highest elevation would be the pebbles on the edge of the runway. This opinion comes from FI's, mind you. No, I don't think I exaggerate, the general European pilot population does think, they are better than the US.
Not two weeks ago, I found an article (an lost it, if I find it again I will post it, I promise) that talked about the difference in helicopter accidents between Europe and the US. They asked, what can Europe do, to get to the level of safety of the US. Which means, our system isn't really better than the US-system. Something to think about.
I think, that the FAA did a good job, to kill the term SWP. That this does not solve the problem with the many more accidents overpitching produces and the FAA or the NTSB do not have a special term for it (or I don't know it).
That the FAA is not always right is also obvious (neither is any other national CAA). I don't understand, why they would introduce the Vuichard thing into the training hand book, without a proper investigation and flight tests. That is beyond me. But the hand book was always a very controversial subject. I talked about it with Shawn Coyle once and I agreed with him, it should be rewritten from the start. But are the EASA books better? I just stumbled over a German safety paper about, among other subjects, well you guessed it, VRS. Absolutely confusing and they use terms, which in German are associated with stall. There you have it. It isn't any better here.
PS: @Senior Pilot: I did not intend to abuse Crab, I just wanted to lighten the mood a bit, to get Robbie to tone it down, because I could see the consequences coming. Apparently I failed and I apologise for it. Now we have probably lost Robbie forever, which is bad. Over the course of this discussion, one could see, how he changed his opinion on the subject and that is, after all, the whole purpose of a discussion. Get more insight.
But I want to make two points for the general discussion.
One: The question is, what do we do now, since the "SWP" is now a contaminated acronym/term. Because it does matter, what overpitching/SWEP is called in the future, not to create another confusion.
For many European pilots, SWP is an US-term that the guys over the pond got wrong. Whenever I had this discussion, SWP was not used correctly, only that it is what we in Europe call VRS. Nothing to do with overpitching or running out of power. Therefore introducing SWP would be a new term for many pilots here and since many think that the FAA is a bunch of amateurs, it would dead from the start.
Two: The FAA is not a bunch of morons or amateurs (that is absolutely not against you, Crab, but I heard it too often and it annoys me quite a bit and I do understand Robbie, why he gets so fired up). In Europe many think, that in the US you get cheap training, therefore it is bad. Nothing could be further from the truth. That the cost of flight training is lower, has nothing to do with less work you have to do to become a proficient pilot. It is in part economics of scale, the way the US finances their system and the training philosophy. Whenever I had to deal with the FAA, I found them extremely helpful and they would do anything possible to solve my problem. One of them even called me in Europe to help me to get my CFI renewed, so I did not have to fly to the next FSDO (that was in the last century). He did not have to do it. I don't think, I would ever gotten that kind of commitment from any CAA in Europe I know of. I have only the highest regard for the FAA and their people and I think many European pilots, who have been trained under the FAA system, agree with me. You may think I exaggerate, but a Swiss pilot mocked US pilots in a newspaper recently for their training, since he/she was flying in the Alps and for US-pilots in Arizona(!) the highest elevation would be the pebbles on the edge of the runway. This opinion comes from FI's, mind you. No, I don't think I exaggerate, the general European pilot population does think, they are better than the US.
Not two weeks ago, I found an article (an lost it, if I find it again I will post it, I promise) that talked about the difference in helicopter accidents between Europe and the US. They asked, what can Europe do, to get to the level of safety of the US. Which means, our system isn't really better than the US-system. Something to think about.
I think, that the FAA did a good job, to kill the term SWP. That this does not solve the problem with the many more accidents overpitching produces and the FAA or the NTSB do not have a special term for it (or I don't know it).
That the FAA is not always right is also obvious (neither is any other national CAA). I don't understand, why they would introduce the Vuichard thing into the training hand book, without a proper investigation and flight tests. That is beyond me. But the hand book was always a very controversial subject. I talked about it with Shawn Coyle once and I agreed with him, it should be rewritten from the start. But are the EASA books better? I just stumbled over a German safety paper about, among other subjects, well you guessed it, VRS. Absolutely confusing and they use terms, which in German are associated with stall. There you have it. It isn't any better here.
PS: @Senior Pilot: I did not intend to abuse Crab, I just wanted to lighten the mood a bit, to get Robbie to tone it down, because I could see the consequences coming. Apparently I failed and I apologise for it. Now we have probably lost Robbie forever, which is bad. Over the course of this discussion, one could see, how he changed his opinion on the subject and that is, after all, the whole purpose of a discussion. Get more insight.
Rotorbee - however
I have no doubt he will be back - he does offer a different perspective which is a good thing in any discussion.
however
Now we have probably lost Robbie forever, which is bad.
Well thanks Crab. But I think Robbie is gone for good.
Anyway, as promised:
Translated by Google. From a speech of the EASA director Patrick Ky at a Swiss Helicopter Association Convention in 2018. Note the "same operation". The FAA must do something right.
Ky also said, that the trend in Europe has not been going down for the last 10 years in Europe and 15% of all accident happen during training. That is bad.
The good thing is, that there will be new EASA regulations with more flexibility for the helicopter industry (well, just not for the Brits). The whole paper is quite interesting.
And since the Swiss FOCA and REGA are part of the group for the new regulation, we can hope, that Vuichard's thing will not be part of the new regs. He is so annoyed with REGA, that he doesn't event want to be rescued by them (From a recent article, why the Swiss FOCA and REGA do not promote his thing after REGA had an accident with VRS. That close to the ground the pilot would have rolled the ship touching down sideways).
Anyway, as promised:
If you compare the heli accident statistics of Europe with those of the USA, you will find that the same operations in Europe are 50 percent less safe
than in the USA: The average number of accidents per 200,000 flight hours is 2.45 in Europe, 1.89 in the USA and 2.96 worldwide, with the highest accident rates being recorded in Africa and Asia.
than in the USA: The average number of accidents per 200,000 flight hours is 2.45 in Europe, 1.89 in the USA and 2.96 worldwide, with the highest accident rates being recorded in Africa and Asia.
Ky also said, that the trend in Europe has not been going down for the last 10 years in Europe and 15% of all accident happen during training. That is bad.
The good thing is, that there will be new EASA regulations with more flexibility for the helicopter industry (well, just not for the Brits). The whole paper is quite interesting.
And since the Swiss FOCA and REGA are part of the group for the new regulation, we can hope, that Vuichard's thing will not be part of the new regs. He is so annoyed with REGA, that he doesn't event want to be rescued by them (From a recent article, why the Swiss FOCA and REGA do not promote his thing after REGA had an accident with VRS. That close to the ground the pilot would have rolled the ship touching down sideways).
An interesting comparison of the accident stats - I wonder how much can be attributed to weather - not that Europe has more or less weather, just that it changes so quickly and catches people out.
Rotorbee,
Yours was a long post that raised many issues and addressed them in a professional manner. I agree with most every thing you said as based upon my many Years of flying helicopters in quite a few different countries and for sure just about every kind of terrain and climate.
As a result I have had the pleasure of dealing with several different authorities to include the FAA and CAA....along with some lesser know nations's aviation authorities.
As humans in order for us to have effective communication we must have commonality of definition. Without that there is no way for us to understand what the other person is saying. Same goes for technical speak such as we use in Aviation.
I would like to respond to a few things you brought up in your post.
Rely less upon buzzwords and acronyms....be specific when you discuss those concepts. Accurately describe with clear language what you are trying to communicate.
So who was wrong there? Those who used SWP to differentiate from VRS or those who were not describing two different situations?
None are amateurs....all are paid government employees....but some are in fact Morons....or Jobsworths as Crab would know them.
The truth about the FAA is Airplane people tend to move up in management faster than do Helicopter people, all FAR's have evolved from an Airplane Only environment, and the FAA does not have the best technical or engineering cadre compared to the aviation industry at large.
Yes...there are some very good people doing the Inspector jobs....but we have seen gross incompetence in some as well just as one should expect from a large government bureaucracy.
I had three CAA folks treat me very well and used their discretion to mend problems....yet we find many here that care not for the CAA.
Lord....if I had a Tuppence for every time I have heard my fellow American Pilots bashed by another naitionality.....I would be living in Monaco on a fine yacht todayl
Arrogance can be found anywhere.
Just because it is in the newspaper does not make it true.
In the past there was some here suggesting the vaunted CAA system of training and standards provided a better safety record than did the FAA system.
Alas, we found there to be no real clear difference....except for the cost of doing business with the CAA as compared to the FAA
That is the real difference between the two...one is User supported and the other is supported by the General Population with a much wider population to pay the bill.
That is a very true statement but the question that should be asked is what are the problems are and why they exist.
Perhaps that might rub off on a lot of people....and we just accept that the one thing that is certainly true....it is different there....as compared to here (no matter where here and there are).
Final thought....if everyone agrees....usually someone is not thinking. A concern for consensus rather than fact is not a good thing.
Yours was a long post that raised many issues and addressed them in a professional manner. I agree with most every thing you said as based upon my many Years of flying helicopters in quite a few different countries and for sure just about every kind of terrain and climate.
As a result I have had the pleasure of dealing with several different authorities to include the FAA and CAA....along with some lesser know nations's aviation authorities.
As humans in order for us to have effective communication we must have commonality of definition. Without that there is no way for us to understand what the other person is saying. Same goes for technical speak such as we use in Aviation.
I would like to respond to a few things you brought up in your post.
The question is, what do we do now, since the "SWP" is now a contaminated acronym/term.
Whenever I had this discussion, SWP was not used correctly, only that it is what we in Europe call VRS. Nothing to do with overpitching or running out of power.
The FAA is not a bunch of morons or amateurs
The truth about the FAA is Airplane people tend to move up in management faster than do Helicopter people, all FAR's have evolved from an Airplane Only environment, and the FAA does not have the best technical or engineering cadre compared to the aviation industry at large.
Yes...there are some very good people doing the Inspector jobs....but we have seen gross incompetence in some as well just as one should expect from a large government bureaucracy.
I had three CAA folks treat me very well and used their discretion to mend problems....yet we find many here that care not for the CAA.
a Swiss pilot mocked US pilots in a newspaper recently for their training
Arrogance can be found anywhere.
Just because it is in the newspaper does not make it true.
I found an article (an lost it, if I find it again I will post it, I promise) that talked about the difference in helicopter accidents between Europe and the US.
Alas, we found there to be no real clear difference....except for the cost of doing business with the CAA as compared to the FAA
That is the real difference between the two...one is User supported and the other is supported by the General Population with a much wider population to pay the bill.
That the FAA is not always right is also obvious (neither is any other national CAA).
There you have it. It isn't any better here.
Final thought....if everyone agrees....usually someone is not thinking. A concern for consensus rather than fact is not a good thing.
Well SASless, thank you for your suggestions. I will try to keep that in mind. As you all have realised, English is not my first language (please add a horrible and embarrassing German accent at your leisure while you read any of my posts), but I try my best.
To clarify a few things:
Very good question. Since the Europeans did not use SWP correctly, they also thought it describes VRS after all, but thought it was the wrong term, and me being young and stubborn. How about everybody?
... and that is the reason, why we should get rid of the term SWP. I think.
It was an interview. In a paper from a kind of non profit organisation. Very big. Hundreds of thousands of readers. I stop here, because it would be very easy to figure out, who it was, if I say more. It wasn't some random pilot. I just think, that when you are in the position that person is, one should have a certain courtesy.
Crab, the weather argument always comes up. Personally, I don't think it makes much of a difference. From my own experience, I haven't seen (with my own eyes, completely biased here) a microburst in Europe, but I have seen a few in Alaska. And weather changes in the US as fast as in Europe. But I rather quote what Ky said:
And
(Again, blame Google)
If the weather was to blame for the difference, I think he would have said so. And he singled out the training environment.
Hughes500
Since I know a few things about accounting, the numbers they present are very clear. The interpretation is more often than not done by the ones who try to find something that isn't there. Having said that, no offence, but let's give the director of the EASA some credit, that he and EASA did their homework and took everything in account that was possible. You can argue about 10%, but 50%?
I think we should take that very seriously.
To clarify a few things:
So who was wrong there? Those who used SWP to differentiate from VRS or those who were not describing two different situations?
... and that is the reason, why we should get rid of the term SWP. I think.
Just because it is in the newspaper does not make it true.
Crab, the weather argument always comes up. Personally, I don't think it makes much of a difference. From my own experience, I haven't seen (with my own eyes, completely biased here) a microburst in Europe, but I have seen a few in Alaska. And weather changes in the US as fast as in Europe. But I rather quote what Ky said:
Very few accidents would occur for technical reasons, most due to the individual operation, the weather, the pilot, the environment.
The fact that 15 percent of all helicopter accidents occur during pilot training in Europe is not normal, something has to be done about it.
If the weather was to blame for the difference, I think he would have said so. And he singled out the training environment.
Hughes500
the problem with facts and figures is the interpretation, just ask an accountant. When looking across at other countries lets make sure we are comparing apples to apples !
I think we should take that very seriously.
Data and Statistics are always fraught with confusion.
It begins with how the Data is compiled...definitiions, tabulating, and calculating....all can result in Apples and Oranges comparisons.
Look to the American Helicopter EMS studies one time....usually running years behind time and filled with some real ambiguities.
As to language....Rotorbee does better in his second language than I do with my second.....my first being "Down South" and the second being American English.
It begins with how the Data is compiled...definitiions, tabulating, and calculating....all can result in Apples and Oranges comparisons.
Look to the American Helicopter EMS studies one time....usually running years behind time and filled with some real ambiguities.
As to language....Rotorbee does better in his second language than I do with my second.....my first being "Down South" and the second being American English.
Rotorbee
Is the training the same ? Is the environment the same ? Etc etc I do not know . But I do know from my experience as an examiner converting US pilots to EASA /UK licences there were a lot of differences, here are a few
None of the US guys had done an engine off landing to the ground ( engine held at idle the whole way down ) , very few had done limited power landings where one did a run on landing to the grass. None had done IGE tail rotor failures, didnt have a clue about closing the throttle to stop the spin. Here is the rub with Europe we expect very very inexperienced instructors , sub 500 hours and in some cases under 300 hours to teach the new guys, they dont have the depth of knowledge or experience. Why does this happen £££££££££££££££££££££
Is the training the same ? Is the environment the same ? Etc etc I do not know . But I do know from my experience as an examiner converting US pilots to EASA /UK licences there were a lot of differences, here are a few
None of the US guys had done an engine off landing to the ground ( engine held at idle the whole way down ) , very few had done limited power landings where one did a run on landing to the grass. None had done IGE tail rotor failures, didnt have a clue about closing the throttle to stop the spin. Here is the rub with Europe we expect very very inexperienced instructors , sub 500 hours and in some cases under 300 hours to teach the new guys, they dont have the depth of knowledge or experience. Why does this happen £££££££££££££££££££££
I refer you to the FAA Practical Test Standards for Check Flights for a Private Pilots Certification (License in CAA lingo).
Look at the Required portions per the PTS Check List of required maneuvers.
This is just for the PPL level.....not the Commercial or ATPL.
I find it hard to accept your comments as being indicative of the true nature of FAA based Training in the United States.
Perhaps some current FAA Licensed CFI's and/or DE's could provide the most recent FAA standards.
Things might have changed since I retired....but I would find it surprising.
The one exception might be Touch Down Autorotations as a lot of aircraft got bent doing practice EOL Touchdowns and at one point the discussion was to limit those to Power Recoveries as it was felt if everything was fine to that point....then the touchdowns in an emergency would turn out well enough.
The added expense of repairs and insurance premiums was a driving reason behind that.
During my training courtesy of the US Army we did hundreds of Touchdowns both during dual training and solo.
As a Factory Sim Instructor at two places....it was amazing how many Pilots did not fully understand the effect of flight controls particularly re torque and torque control by means of throttle and collective.
That translated into some having difficulties with coping with Tail Rotor malfunctions.
That cut across all Nationalities not just any one particular one.
Look at the Required portions per the PTS Check List of required maneuvers.
This is just for the PPL level.....not the Commercial or ATPL.
I find it hard to accept your comments as being indicative of the true nature of FAA based Training in the United States.
Perhaps some current FAA Licensed CFI's and/or DE's could provide the most recent FAA standards.
Things might have changed since I retired....but I would find it surprising.
The one exception might be Touch Down Autorotations as a lot of aircraft got bent doing practice EOL Touchdowns and at one point the discussion was to limit those to Power Recoveries as it was felt if everything was fine to that point....then the touchdowns in an emergency would turn out well enough.
The added expense of repairs and insurance premiums was a driving reason behind that.
During my training courtesy of the US Army we did hundreds of Touchdowns both during dual training and solo.
As a Factory Sim Instructor at two places....it was amazing how many Pilots did not fully understand the effect of flight controls particularly re torque and torque control by means of throttle and collective.
That translated into some having difficulties with coping with Tail Rotor malfunctions.
That cut across all Nationalities not just any one particular one.
@ Hughes500: Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I just delivered an information from EASA. If you don't like it, that's up to you. But since you are not part of that anymore, you can relax. If you read the whole article, the EASA might not be very sad about it.
We had this discussion about the differences in training and I don't want to trigger it again. That would be for another thread.
But I can't help it. One thing, all the manoeuvres you mention solve only mechanical failures, which are very rare and by far not the things that kill people regularly.
BTW, I have done them all and more (stuck cyclic anyone?).
There is one thing that stuck in my mind many many moons ago.
Somebody asked what would you do, if you could go on a flight with Bob Hoover. What would you like him to show you.
And the answer was: Show me how you conduct a normal flight. With preparation, preflight and everything. That made a lot of sense to me.
@SASless: At least you don't have to live with this accent of mine. And regarding statistics, it is what it is. Helpful if used accordingly, deceptive if you want it to be.
@All: If EASA has concerns about the accident rate in Europe, we can at least take that as food for thought and not just dismiss it.
And by the way, VRS wasn't on the list.
We had this discussion about the differences in training and I don't want to trigger it again. That would be for another thread.
But I can't help it. One thing, all the manoeuvres you mention solve only mechanical failures, which are very rare and by far not the things that kill people regularly.
BTW, I have done them all and more (stuck cyclic anyone?).
There is one thing that stuck in my mind many many moons ago.
Somebody asked what would you do, if you could go on a flight with Bob Hoover. What would you like him to show you.
And the answer was: Show me how you conduct a normal flight. With preparation, preflight and everything. That made a lot of sense to me.
@SASless: At least you don't have to live with this accent of mine. And regarding statistics, it is what it is. Helpful if used accordingly, deceptive if you want it to be.
@All: If EASA has concerns about the accident rate in Europe, we can at least take that as food for thought and not just dismiss it.
And by the way, VRS wasn't on the list.
Rotorbee
Sorry wasnt trying to shoot you down at all. From what I have seen recently where maintenance companies have been forced by EASA to have reams of paperwork with less and less attention being paid to actually maintaining the machines, i would beg to differ. Up to fairly recently my 300's were maintained by a type rated engineer working for himself. that has now become illegal so had to move my machines to a company that has no experience on the type, no type rated engineers ( in fact they have to use my old engineer to sign things off )takes 4 times as long to do anything and quite often gets it wrong, BUT has all the correct bits of paper , that is EASA improving safety ! Another company's chief engineer didnt even know how the track and balance gear worked !
As for training there has been a severe dumbing down of training here in Europe with standards of instructors plummeting. It is actually really easy to land a S 300 in auto, I have probably done 5 to 6000 in my time, havent bent anything yet apart from a genuine double mag failure at 80 ft 30 knots coming into land and that was just the cross beam.
The culture unfortunately is that instruction is seen as the lowest of the low and a way to build hours to a " better paid job"that needs to change where the best people are teaching the newest guys, that way the accident rate will come down here in Europe, although I think it is pretty good here in UK. I have no idea of instruction in the USA or else where come to that
Sorry wasnt trying to shoot you down at all. From what I have seen recently where maintenance companies have been forced by EASA to have reams of paperwork with less and less attention being paid to actually maintaining the machines, i would beg to differ. Up to fairly recently my 300's were maintained by a type rated engineer working for himself. that has now become illegal so had to move my machines to a company that has no experience on the type, no type rated engineers ( in fact they have to use my old engineer to sign things off )takes 4 times as long to do anything and quite often gets it wrong, BUT has all the correct bits of paper , that is EASA improving safety ! Another company's chief engineer didnt even know how the track and balance gear worked !
As for training there has been a severe dumbing down of training here in Europe with standards of instructors plummeting. It is actually really easy to land a S 300 in auto, I have probably done 5 to 6000 in my time, havent bent anything yet apart from a genuine double mag failure at 80 ft 30 knots coming into land and that was just the cross beam.
The culture unfortunately is that instruction is seen as the lowest of the low and a way to build hours to a " better paid job"that needs to change where the best people are teaching the newest guys, that way the accident rate will come down here in Europe, although I think it is pretty good here in UK. I have no idea of instruction in the USA or else where come to that
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Rotorbee - however I have no doubt he will be back - he does offer a different perspective which is a good thing in any discussion.
however I have no doubt he will be back - he does offer a different perspective which is a good thing in any discussion.
The culture unfortunately is that instruction is seen as the lowest of the low and a way to build hours to a " better paid job"that needs to change where the best people are teaching the newest guys, that way the accident rate will come down here in Europe, although I think it is pretty good here in UK. I have no idea of instruction in the USA or else where come to that.
Minor variations as in all things depending upon opportunity, skill, who you know.......and a lot of luck of being in the right place at the right time.