Jabiman;

Appropriately quoted. Of course, Captain Sullenberger's appearance before Congress is the quintessential statement on the industry as it stands today.

For others reading or contributing, in my view it is a fundamental mistake in this argument of pay-vs-skill to make a direct connection between how much a pilot is paid and the quality of decision-making s/he makes on a daily operational basis. I have argued for at least a decade within my own former airline and elsewhere that that is not where the problem lies. Pilots, once in the cockpit will do their absolute level best even if they are paying their employer to fly their airplanes simply because it is good survival strategy if nothing else. One does not make "better" decisions because one has a higher paycheck coming in at the end of the month. However, there is indeed a strong connection, but it is not at this level and you have quoted the finest example of this argument.

Sully has argued the case for change and enhancement of the profession of "airline pilot" more clearly, succinctly and successfully than anyone when he says in his brilliant statement that the best and brightest will not come to the profession under the present atrocious working and pay conditions. What has happened to our profession under the guise of "helping the employer" is nothing less than a desecration of this profession at the hands of marketing theorists, newbie MBAs and the daily bean-counting middle managers who know nothing about aviation but know about pressure from above to control costs at all cost.

Such fine-tuning of what is an enormously capital-intensive business can be done, but unless done intelligently with data and honest feedback instead of meetings and bureacratic structures which silo and otherwise kill efficiency and which drive and sustain the illusion of success, the results will turn out just as we see them today - a cheapened, marginalized profession which is not the least bit attractive to the keen and talented young people we need to fill our retiring ranks.

The "best and brightest" have taken a look at "professional airline pilot" and said, "I don't think so...", and have taken their intelligence, talent, discipline and desire for a good living elsewhere. Airline managments have not yet heard the news, and the MCPL is filling the holes with "98.6F" in the right seat but not much else. The Royal Aeronautical Society does not take causes on lightly, but they have this one. The technique of ticking the box has extended right into the human component in the cockpit and the incident and accident trends are now reflecting that thinking.

As for the thread itself, it is a worthwhile discussion but perhaps would have been a better reflection on our profession for some to have retained the dignity of respectful, non-personal discussion in the thread, but there it is - it is an emotional issue for all and passions run deep, which is a sign of how seriously we all take what has occurred to our profession at the hands of those who don't know aviation, and don't know that they don't know.

Could not agree more with Captain Sullenberger.....

They will not learn till its too late!!:=

The guy only asked if it was a dying breed,
 

Absolutely standard after that.

overrun;

Yup. All the rest are details. We shouldn't even be having this conversation.

SNS3 Guppy,

I think you're lying or you don't work for a real airline. There is no reputable 121 carrier in the U.S with these statistics:


Apologies for the blunt approach. However, your claims are outlandish. If your claims were true then the HR and training department should be fired at a far greater rate than any pilot.

You refused to identify your employer earlier. A third tier cargo company in Michigan perhaps ? ;)

Cheers

Upgrades failures may happen simply because a candidate was not ready. This can happen in a seniority based system particularly at times when hiring is busy and employers need to reach down farther into the depths of the pool.
Unscheduled ops are far different than those used to domestic or flag rules. In the non-skeds you are pretty much on your own and upgrade failures happen in the sim or during ioe/line checks due to the sometimes overwhelming nature of the beast for those who are not ready.

Fortunately for me, you're incorrect, and what you think has no bearing on my employment. Thanks for your deep and abiding concern, however.

Have you anything to contribute to the subject at hand?

Junkflyer is correct.

quoting statistics on pprune doesn't mean much at all. I can look up statistics elsewhere. What I do want to hear about is what we see for ourselves on the line, out in the wild blue, or at a meeting of the quiet birdmen.

In my new hire class of about 22 people some 23 years ago, 3 of us were injured and on disability, one died of stomach cancer, one retired, 3 changed to a different airline, one has been pregnant twice, another died of another ailment (I forgot what).

so what does that mean? stuff happens!

cheers

SNS3Guppy - how about identifying your employer? That way others can backup, or refute, you outlandish claim.

Why isn't it a rule on this forum that people be required to post in their public profile at least the basics of what empowers (or not) them to comment? Even I list my pitiful aviation accomplishments--the reason I rarely put an oar in--and it really annoys me that other commenters condescendingly list simply that they "live somewhere on the planet" and then hold forth on whatever issue amuses them.

Certainly they needn't list their employer or home address, but why not just a certificate or type rating?

I suspect SNS3guppy is entirely legitimate, but why the cat-and-mouse game?

I think identifying the airline you work for is a mistake. In this internet age, one can easily find posts used against them and lose their job.

It is hard to know if someone is bluff or real. I met a fellow on this site who actually knew someone I knew...and knew enough about them that I have no doubt about their flying background.

There isn't a secret handshake or anything. But I can usually spot a phony.

There are questions one can ask...''in jokes'' hotels that aren't there anymore that can really identify someone.

Ask an old USAIR East pilot what the hotel's name was for the overnights in KBUF...anyone might tell you...but when he smiles, you will know.

Ask an American pilot who CR was and see how many tell a canadair regional (ha!!!!!)

I could go on, but won't.

Because it's irrelevant. That's why.

Whether I'm a retired space shuttle pilot or a student in a lowly Cessna, my responses remain the same.

You want to know whether to give them credence by determining if you think I'm important enough. If Sully mouths the words, they must be true, because after all, he made a forced landing once. If Joe Blow mouths the words, the same identical words, they have no meaning, even though it's the same data, the same words, because Joe Blow doesn't have the qualifications that float your boat?

The words stand, and so does my point, which is correct, and true. I realize that perhaps you can't address the subject intelligently, and thus want to address me, instead, but that doesn't change the subject, my point, or the accuracy of my comments.

Have you something to contribute to the thread?

I would like to contribute. :suspect:

You are either lying about the statistics at your company, or you are supporting a management that hires and trains incredibly poorly.

Any respectable Pilot, HR or training department would be ashamed of those statistics. Not defending them. Where are you finding these people and how are you training them ?

"Have you something to contribute to the thread?"

Absolutely not, as you can plainly see by reading my profile, a decades-ago Citation driver. That's why I make that profile available, and that's why I simply ask the question as to why others apparently daren't.

I don't wish to give your responses credence according to whether you're "important" enough but whether you're experienced enough. Your response that it doesn't matter whether you're a Cessna student or a Shuttle commander is so baffling that you've pushed me straight into JPJP's camp.

That's my contribution to this thread.

Or the other alternative is that the T & C's being offered by Guppies company are so poor that they only attract the dregs and it is up to the training department to try to separate those with any promise. This would also explain Guppies insistence that low pay does not equate to a lesser quality airman.

That might be one response.

I haven't flown with everyone at my operator, and I meet new people all the time. Most of those with whom I fly or work are extremely well qualified individuals, most of whom have been around the block more than once.

We don't tend to attract, nor hire, the lower common denominator. Most all have former captain experience on various large equipment, many have heavy, international experience.

We do still upgrade people from the FE seat; indeed, some captains began many years ago in that seat, while at the same time, we still have professional flight engineers who have no intention of vacating those seats.

The background and experience, like any company, fluctuates with the pilot market and the times; presently, one would be hard pressed to get an interview without fifteen thousand hours or more and international widebody experience. I couldn't compete with many who are being interviewed today; if I were to apply today, I wouldn't stand a chance, given some of the quality individuals I've met who have been hired of late. Many are very experienced individuals who have a full career behind them, or like so many in this business, several experiences with furloughs, etc.

The company has a large pool from which to draw, particularly given the events of the past few years. Individuals who thought they were working the last job they would ever need, found themselves on the street; we've been lucky to get them, as would any operator. I'm not involved in the hiring at my employer, nor the selection, testing, or training. I'm not a check airman there. I don't know the current statistics. I don't visit the training department save for twice a year, for the most part, and my work keeps me abroad most of the time.

I'm not going to discuss my employment; it doesn't change the fact that the accusations made here by certain individuals, indictments on the industry as a whole, are false. Airlines have not replaced technical questions and interviews with questions regarding parental approval. The sky is not falling. Training standards are not being lowered, and airlines do not set out with agendas to hire the least experienced, least able, and least capable pilots that they can.

There is no question that the industry has some pay issues, quality of life issues, duty and rest issues, and other factors that are less than stellar, and which must be addressed. That a regional airline pilot can work full time and still receive government aid because he meets poverty criteria is something the public doesn't realize, and it's something more endemic to the regional rungs in the United States than most places abroad. It's none the less a problem. This isn't necessarily a quality problem, in that it doesn't represent airlines seeking to hire the lowest common denominator. It represents the entry level position, that has always been the entry level position, and it's not one that has ever attracted the most experienced pilots, or that likely ever will.

Every industry has it's starting points. One of my last fire assignments paid four hundred dollars a flight hour, plus a daily salary, plus overtime, plus perdiem, plus mileage, plus other considerations. I won't ever make that flying for an airline. It also wasn't an entry level job, whereas many airline jobs, especially at the regional level, are. I've been in the unfortunate position in the past in which I wanted to change employment from government utility flying, but couldn't afford to make the change. Given my present obligations, I couldn't afford to go to a regional airline, or even a starting position with any major airline, presently. I recently had an offer of a friend to interview for a position with an established national airline, inside recommendation, and all. A very generous offer on his part. Unfortunately, I can't live on what I'd make, and the job wouldn't permit me to do what I've had to sometimes do in the past; work second employment to make up the difference. I very much doubt I'm the only one in this position.

A little less than a year ago, I returned from a furlough. I count myself fortunate, and grateful, to have employment, period. There are a lot of unemployed aviators out there. I was fortunate to be able to stay employed doing various things during my furlough, and I've often worked second and third assignments, temporary assignments, contracts, etc, on the side, or part time, or during leaves of absence. Many are unable. Many, presently, are unable to find work at all.

I had an interesting experience a couple of years ago, while doing some charter work for a small company. The operator had an early morning run to a neighboring state, flying some rush medical supplies every morning. The supplies were radioactive, and contained in heavy boxes. The work involved IFR in mountainous terrain, often IMC, sometimes in ice. It involved bending, lifting, and it was hard on one's back. It didn't pay well. I was working in the shop, doing instruction on the side, and fulfilling check airman duties as well, to make ends meet. Clearly such positions are not often the first choice of an experienced airman, and when several out of work airline pilots approached me about work, it was the only thing to which I could point them.

Every one of them said no. No way they were going to fly light airplanes, including single engine airplanes and light piston twins, at night, IMC, and do all that work, especially for that amount of money. Surely I had something better for them. Sorry; it's all that was available.

Then their unemployment benefits began to run out. They began to realize that their chances of finding work were better if they were currently flying something, anything. Far better to get paid a little and stay current, than have no income, do no flying, and not be marketable. None of them had any maintenance skills, none of them were instructors, so the only work available for them was an occasional charter, and the morning "juice run." Suddenly they were very interested in flying those early morning runs. I gave them up to make room for the other pilots, and soon they were taking the flights.

Overnight, the company went from using pilots who were inexperienced flight instructors with few hours and a very short resume, to pilots with ten thousand hours and a decade or more of airline flying, some with corporate flying, etc, to do those early morning runs.

The thread, of course, is talking about airlines, rather than charter departments. The airline industry does not operate, however, in a vacuum. Individuals flow through many channels to arrive in airline seats, and individuals flow through airlines to arrive in other seats throughout the industry. One cannot consider the airlines without considering a much wider scope, as well.

It's been said that the industry is failing because it can no longer attract the "best and brightest." That is a rather trite expression that sounds good on paper, but really means nothing. Does it suggest that individuals who once felt drawn to aviation will instead turn to become space shuttle scientists, doctors, lawyers, and indian chiefs? Hardly.

Many enter into aviation without the slightest intention of ever becoming an airline pilot. Being an airline pilot is not the be-all, nor end-all of employment as a pilot, or employment in aviation, for matter. It's not exactly a high-speed, low-drag segment of the industry, and not really the most demanding, either. One doesn't need to be a hot stick, or the best and the brightest, to be an airline pilot. One needs to be able to operate to the standards prescribed by the training department, to be able to follow regulations, and to operate within a fairly small window of performance, routing, etc. That's all. It's the very reason that for many years, we were able to introduce fairly inexperienced aviators in the flight engineer seat, transition them to the right seat, and eventually the left.

"Best and brightest" is somewhat of a misnomer, then. Sully made a successful forced landing. That many think this is a remarkable thing is unfortunate. He did what we're paid to do: use judgment on the fly, and fly the airplane until it comes to a rest. We do not need twenty thousand hours to be able to do that. In fact, Sully noted that glider experience (to hark back to the general aviation discussion before) was the source he tapped when making his forced landing. Light airplane skills. Basic stick and rudder, when all is said and done. It doesn't take the "best and brightest" to make a forced landing; it takes someone who doesn't quit, doesn't cave in to pressure, and who understands that like it or not, there's a job to be done and no escaping it until the airplane comes to a rest. That's really what every one of us does on a day-in and day-out basis. It's what we're trained to do, it's what we do when the chips are down, and it's what we're expected to do. No one should ever expect less.

I can tell you that when I began flying, I had no intention of flying for an airline. It never crossed my mind. In fact, I took an entirely different track, eventually crop dusting and doing a number of other things from government, fire, certain military work, charter, ambulance, various utility flying, etc. I wasn't attracted, nor dissuaded by airline salaries. At various times I had opportunities to interview for, or received recommendations for airline positions. I couldn't afford to take them. At some point, I did take them, and while I still don't consider myself an airline pilot (I'm a displaced crop duster), I'm doing the same grind as many do presently.

We know the score starting out. We know the salaries; they're widely posted, and available. A student has but to do a little enquiring to learn that the first ten years are tough financially. He may need to move repeatedly. He may need to change jobs. He may need to work second (or even third jobs). It's a long haul, a tough row to hoe. All of that and more. This isn't a new thing, and it hasn't changed in many, many years. Yet suddenly as an industry we're no longer capable of attracting the "best and brightest?"

I submit that one who wants to fly for a living (I do it because it's cheaper than renting; someone pays me to fly) does it because one wants to fly. The drive to fly is what draws someone into this business; not the promise of lofty wages, flashy uniforms, and image. It's the flying. Some come up through the military, often getting out and going to an airline, and never having known the struggle or the hardship of surviving in the industry. Many who do so wrinkle their noses as the wages; it's typically a substantial pay cut for a military pilot to transition to an airline. Such is life. Are these the "best and brightest?" No. Might they go elsewhere? Maybe. Does this mean the industry suffers, or that the industry doesn't get dedicated professionals who can fly an airplane? Of course not.

The sky is not falling. Training departments have not relegated themselves to a kindergarten-level of training. Airlines haven't replaced technical interviews with parental consent questions only. Standardization still exists, is still enforced. If anything, the level and quality of training has improved over the years, and modern CRM and CRM-related training in it's various forms and names is a far cry from what it once was. Given some of the ols,d mentalities in the cockpit, one may say that today we're operating "better and brighter" than in the past, and to higher standards.

I do agree that too many "children of the magenta line" are out there, but this is a consequence of evolution in cockpits, not an indictment on the industry regarding airlines seeking to hire the least experience they can. Low entry wages are not new. Those who think they are new betray their own inexperience. There is little new, under the sun.

lf there`s one thing you can say about the yanks it`s that they know how to have a good scrap !

Sometimes misguided but always a good `un thankfully; no meally mouthed european pant wetting diplomatic nonsense.

Just get stuck in. We need more.

Personally, l`m quite handy with the odd taildragging powerhouse that would like to turn through 90deg when lifting the tail but latterly my aviation skills seem to centre around my ability to type 60 words a minute.

That`s the way it is, but don`t let me stop you guys !

Seconds out .......

Best post I have read on an aviation forum in years Mr. Guppy. Clear cut, factual and spot on. That should settle that....

dying breed
 

SNS,

Well said!

Lifter

Thats for sure. Guppy states a very eloquent case for what happens in the US with a robust GA sector and a FAA 1500 hour minimum rule for airline pilots.
But in Europe, with anaemic GA and the military pilots having record retention rates, the situation has become the norm where someone can be sitting in the FO seat with 200 hours. Does such a pilot possess adequate experience and/or airmanship?

Check out the Parc website.

For £54k you can front up at the parent company in Oxford, OAT that was, get a frozen ATPL and a summer`s work in a shiny costume for Easy Jet, on exes.
The captains must be run ragged.

The answer to your question is self evident.

l honestly never thought l would see this.

The captains are run rugged.
Comments like when I want your help I will ask for it when passing 20 NM at 8500 feet.


The other good one is " I'M not flying a profile I'M flying a heading"

I surpose if teams and conditions don't improve we could always write a book.

I just read Sully's book and I thought I read that he said his previous gliding experiences didn't really help becuase they were so different, and that in fact it was his thousands of hours of honing his energy management on jets that helped.

l didn`t know he had any gliding experience, l`m afraid.

May l respectfully suggest that you have hard facts concerning that man, and not contentious waffle, since he did actually pull off a blinder.
His time, if he did, selling Tony`s lce Cream from a van would not matter a jot.

Ask his pax.

Mungo l don`t bear grudges, life is far too short for that. When you get that elusive left seat, as you will, you will find for starters it`s the most lonely and scariest place in the universe, and eventually you will find you stop staggering under the weight of four gold bars.
At that point you will have the choice of airmanship or bull****.

Now that is the crux of the matter, in my humble opinion, so please don`t get it wrong. Bye.

??? I'm just quoting from the man's book.

foreign slang glossary
 

will someone publish a foreign (to me) slang glossary. I don't have a clue what the last two posts mean.

it seems to me that sully made a left turn, flew a certain speed and kept the wings level till splashdown.

I'd like to think that every ATP on this forum could do the same thing. Gliding experience? I don't think he was looking for thermals do you? I recall when the four basics of flight were climbs, straight and level, turns and glides (the word glide being replaced by descent)

In partial answer to the question set in the title: it will continue to seem like a dying breed.

There are a few considerations that haven't appeared here yet.

One is the natural limitations on talent. In the 1990's, when the true awfulness of much SW was becoming known to a wider public, a friend of mine, who knew everybody when he started and is still known by everybody, relayed a comment by one of his (even) older colleagues: "you know, when I started in the '60's, there were probably about thirty good programmers in the world. Things haven't changed."

Pick the competence level: there are a certain number of people in the world who interest themselves enough, train enough, and are good enough, to hold a particular flying standard with that level of training and recurrent training. Maybe not all of them are flying professionally, and maybe one can encourage more to do so, but once the level is picked the numbers are thereby limited.

What happens if you need 20-30% more pilots than that? Well, it's going to cost 40-50% more, because the ones you get are going to need more training, more recurrency, more everything to maintain the standard than the ones you already have. Or you're going to have to lower the standard. It's just the way things are.

Now, this consideration isn't decisive. Because we actually do have more talented programmers and computer scientists in the world than we had in the 1990's (let alone the 1960's) and that is because talented people are attracted. Math is dead-end; physics is dead-end; suppose you like technical detail: go into computer security. It's a huge growth industry, starting from almost nothing (pure military apps) in the mid-1980's.

But that doesn't seem to be happening in airline flying because of the Sullenberger-PJ2 considerations. Since I have been reading Aviation Week (mid 1980's) there have been regular letters complaining about a similar situation in aeronautical engineering. Talented people were apparently now going to computer companies or finance (which got technical).

Second is the type of training. The different aspects of understanding and flying the fundamentals versus following the magenta line have been done to death in a few dozen threads here. So I won't reiterate that. But I will say in all likelihood the magenta line wins out. It wins for different reasons than in my first point above; I have in mind two. One is that it embodies judgements about flying logistics that largely cannot be calculated in real-time by two flying crew, so management likes it, even savvy management, and they do run the show. The second is a phenomenon called by John Adams "risk homeostasis" and by some others "risk compensation". I was driven around town in a recent snowstorm by a taxi driver who drove in slippery conditions as if he were on just a wet road. He was relying completely on ESP and ABS to maintain his vehicle in its accustomed mode of proceeding, in case he should misjudge a situation. It worked (not just for my trip, obviously). That's what people do, and pilots and their managers are no different. And it works (until it doesn't). If that is what you are mainly used to, then flying the raw data is going to be proportionately less familiar, no matter what your level of talent and professionalism.

Third is a phenomenon highlighted by Guppy and countered by Jabiman. NA is a place in which you can accumulate the kind of experience recounted by Guppy. So is Oz. For all I know, so is Brazil. Not many other places. You can't get it any more in Europe, and the East, where growth is at present, is not known for its wide-open spaces and inexpensive private aviation culture. So people are going to be ab initio trained and put in the right seat. Like it or not. The question - with 200 hours or with 2000 hours? - has already been answered. I guess that, unless the accident statistics get, quickly, a lot worse, it is not going to go up from where it is now, which is low-hundreds (except in those places with a plethora of high-time pilots without jobs, such as the US). Correspondingly, avionics will be designed to cope with this situation.

There is an article in The Economist this week which addresses some of the economic phenomena of contemporary transport flying. I introduced it, but a moderator thoughtfully relegated it to the "Passengers and SLF" Forum here, where it is sure to get a lot of attention from those discussing the changes in the flying profession. On a private list, it was discussed by an IFATCA executive, PJ2, and people intimately involved in assessing the major 1990's ATC upgrades in Canada, UK, Australia, and the US. The consensus is that the ATC upgrade problem is not due to controllers' views or actions, but largely due to technical difficulties and the airlines themselves not wanting to move to a variable-pricing slot model. The question arose why avionics are comparatively so advanced and ATC systems up until now so technically troubled (this has begun to change with systems such as iFACTS, which have been developed using Correct-by-Construction techniques).

The reason such considerations are relevant to the cockpit situation is that the beancounters always win (to complete the argument, put this together with my points one and two above). But the question is what beans they count. Do they count the beans they didn't have to grow but might have had to if a couple of truckloads had tipped over on the highway? Not according to PJ2. Safety (which is ultimately what this thread is about) is a hidden variable as things now stand. The trick is to make it explicit, along with its price, and no one here has yet suggested how to do that. To do it, one has to understand the entire economic environment. To my mind, the above article is part of that.

PBL

What is it that you're afraid of? Yes, he had gliding experience.
I don't know what a "blinder" is, but it's also not what Sully said:

A&S Interview: Sully?s Tale | Flight Today | Air & Space Magazine
Sully made a power-off, off-field forced landing. He's not the first to ditch, he's not the first to glide, and he's not the first to do either one successfully. He did an excellent job, as did his FO. He should be expected to do nothing less, no should any one of us.

Reading the above referenced interview, you may be correct: Sully is asked about his gliding background, and he states the following:

So what exactly is your interest Guppy ?
 

Envy perhaps ?

No! I think he tells the thruth...that's all true what he said...if you read his posts more and follow on pprune him then you'll realize that he acquired his extensive aeronautical knowledge by retaining lots of humility and respect for aircraft..
read about his run-in with Kathleen Sclachter.. [ primary contributor on AC-0.045]...:\

.UAL-232---was special...:)

l don`t have a clue mate, my fault l`m sure.

Could you please explain ?

http://www.pprune.org/4350737-post2.html

:)

Ah. A polite cough is called for.

Thankyou.

l feel quite depressed now, is there any good news?

Anything will do.

How about this then?
 

Quote:

---

Safety (which is ultimately what this thread is about) is a hidden variable as things now stand. The trick is to make it explicit, along with its price, and no one here has yet suggested how to do that. To do it, one has to understand the entire economic environment.

---

That nicely gets to the crux of the matter.
In team sports, the difference between a top professional player and an average one could physically be very minor and yet the difference in salary could be an order of magnitude (10x) or more. The economic reason is competition between teams for these players.
In the general workforce, these pressures are not so pronounced and while professions which experience shortages may have rapid wage growth and a large premium placed on ability, this does not generally happen for piloting.
My idea for rectifying this competitive deficiency is to regulate airlines so that they have to show the experience of the flight crew as part of the booking process.
In this way passengers have a choice as to flying with an inexperienced crew or possibly paying more for greater experience.
Initially I suggested this to be quantified by showing the number of hours of experience that the Captain and FO possess but as we all know, hours does not = experience.
But herein lays the problem, possibly the number of years that the pilot has been flying.
Regardless of how the experience is measured, I believe that it would create a competition between the airlines for the better rated crew and therefore this would lead to the unusual situation of pilot salaries going up rather than down.

lt doesn`t seem to work with taxis, l`ve tried avoiding the ones with lumps out but the price is the same.

Is there a friend of Guppies out there who is able to make direct contact by phone, etc. ? to make sure he`s ok ?

A bit concerned about this, he`s gone quiet, too quiet.

Apparently not.

Rivalino.
 

Could l put a couple of quid your way for a signed first edition ?

Your point? I posted this morning. You think I don't post enough?

How is this relevant to the thread?

Who is Kathleen Sclachter?

In what? In the thread, or Sully? Read the thread; it's fairly self-explanatory.

I'll make some suggestions to start the debate.

1) regulations should be clear and not open to interpretation
2) regulators regulate to the rule instead of the prevailing economic climate

Most issues would solve themselves if the above were adhered to.

the Wright's learned things first hand that I could only read about.

Lindbergh knew things that I have never known in person.

And I know a few things that won't be easily passed on to others.

But I do think, in any real training scheme, that the thirst for aeronautical knowledge be made part of the course.

Let me ask this question for honest answers. Mind you I am aware of the changes to modern television from 40 years ago.

IF YOU WERE out in a highly rural area, seemingly lost, in a small plane and you came upon a farm house with a television antenna, could you use this for some form of navigation?

think about it and answer.

Now, if you have never heard of this, you have learned something.

Also ask yourself what flying in a triangular pattern while making right turns means...and with left turns.

Its all about self motivation to learn things.

I know the first one. The narrowest part of the antenna points to a major city where the TV transmitter is located. The left and right triangles have to do with your receiver being operational or not as I recall. I think right turns is with an operative receiver. Without a transponder which would make this an easy fix I doubt if any controller would notice you before you ran out of gas. Now with analog TV being gone the little digital antennas aren't being used much so at least you could see where south was using the Directv antennas depending on what region you were in. Remember flying the old 727 types with no magenta line? Entering holding was fun then. You couldn't just push a button. Now getting an instrument rating probably only requires a 10 hr typing course. That will probably be standard in 2020.