Interesting article by Rod Machado

[nightsta1ker]

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2012/september/license.html

[Goldy]

Basically, I don't want your stupidity to infringe on my freedoms....well written Rod. Thanks for posting Stalker.

[Mikemv]

Rod has lost it lately! Most of his friends from SAFE & NAFI, and his peers can not understand his mentality.

 

I know he is an Icon and has brought a lot of great training info to the flight training industry but many of us question his written approach to things lately.

 

There is not a whole lot of Regs proposed to be added to part 61, 91, 135, etc. Why bring up Part 121 when discussing these other Parts?

 

I attended the NTSB conference he talks about and no one wanted more regulations. No one even mentioned more regs. to decrease accidents! What was discussed was ab initio training and an early introduction of ADM and creating pilots with Higher Order Thinking Skills to reduce the majority of accidents caused by Human Factors (pilot errors). He is correct that if pilots want to act stupid, nothing will fix that, not training or regs.

 

Children under 2 must not be restrained in a seat belt worn by an adult as they would be crushed between the weight of the adult and the thinly focused pressure of the seat belt in an accident either in a car or aircraft. It was not about parents not affording to pay for a seat!!!!!!! This is an example that his friends are wondering about. Why is he coming up with this stuff.

 

Rod has recently written (mistakenly) about the "the initial heavy and confusing training being used by "most" airplane flight schools and all new pilots "lacking stick & rudder" skills. Are all private pilot applicants failing practical tests? He also recommends on his web site that we return to using a 1971 syllabus for training pilots! 1971? Do any of you really want to only train to 1971 standards. The PTS have evolved far beyond the minimal training in 1971 syllabi. The world has evolved since 1971.

 

I have always respected Rod and have recently e-mailed him about some of his articles. Many of his friends have also addressed this with him. His training publications are great and he recently did a live interview at Air Venture that was outstanding!

 

We must all step up to reduce accidents. Rod is correct in stating that regs. will not prevent accidents when humans decide to act in a such a manner. FAA regulations exist to protect the general public during flight operations in the National Airspace and not to prevent accidents.

 

God Bless Rod and what he has done for aviation but understand that the FAA, HAI, AOPA, IHST, SAFE, NAFI, NTSB and other entities are not proposing accident reduction through heavy regulation changes!

 

Mike

[nightsta1ker]

Thanks for the insight Mike. Kind of gives a new spin to the article. I can only guess here but perhaps he has been hearing a lot of the same rhetoric that ha been floating around here lately about the Feds needing to create more rules. It seems to be a position a lot of new/less experienced pilots are taking.

[aeroscout]

We as a community should endeavor to encourage those best suited to pursue a pilot career. We should not be endeavoring to brainwash people into thinking correctly through ADM, and other approaches. The hardest thing to do in life is to change someone's attitudes and thought processes. It is so much easier to work with a person who is of a like mind, or is malleable enough that they will readily adopt industry best practices.

[eagle5]

I wonder, does the GA accident rate differentiate between those pilots who own their aircraft and those who rent?

 

I know renters generally have to go through a checkout process and periodic recurrent training, plus if they don't rent for a while (some once a month, others twice a month) then they have to fly with a company CFI again. Whereas owners only have to do a BFR (unless perhaps their insurance requires more?).

 

I would imagine that there are more accidents involving owners than renters, but I haven't done any research?

[Bobsyouruncle]

 

 

There is not a whole lot of Regs proposed to be added to part 61, 91, 135, etc. Why bring up Part 121 when discussing these other Parts?

 

I attended the NTSB conference he talks about and no one wanted more regulations. No one even mentioned more regs. to decrease accidents! What was discussed was ab initio training and an early introduction of ADM and creating pilots with Higher Order Thinking Skills to reduce the majority of accidents caused by Human Factors (pilot errors). He is correct that if pilots want to act stupid, nothing will fix that, not training or regs.

 

How did the NTSB suggest adding ab initio training, early introduction to ADM and creating pilots with higher order thinking skills. We're they going to ask people to conduct this training and be smarter or would they require it through regulation?

 

 

Children under 2 must not be restrained in a seat belt worn by an adult as they would be crushed between the weight of the adult and the thinly focused pressure of the seat belt in an accident either in a car or aircraft. It was not about parents not affording to pay for a seat!!!!!!! This is an example that his friends are wondering about. Why is he coming up with this stuff.

 

Pretty sure he's talking about the lap rule that children under two can be carried on a lap. They could have required they be restrained in the car seats which is what many people choose to do but it requires a ticket. I don't believe anyone has ever questioned that lap carrying is a cost saving move but certainly not a safe one.

[Spike]

We as a community should endeavor to encourage those best suited to pursue a pilot career. We should not be endeavoring to brainwash people into thinking correctly through ADM, and other approaches. The hardest thing to do in life is to change someone's attitudes and thought processes. It is so much easier to work with a person who is of a like mind, or is malleable enough that they will readily adopt industry best practices.

 

I agree.

 

While listening to an interview with a MLB bench coach, the reporter asked about a recent workout with one of the players. Specifically, the reporter asked, was it possible to coach a pro-level player? The coach's reply was "absolutely". He said, one of the markers of a good ball player is his ability to be coached. In fact, being coachable becomes apparent at a very young age. That is, either you have it, or you don't. And, those who don't shouldn't be on the field because they eventually become a detriment to all.

 

Just because you can pay the cash and earn a license doesn't necessarily mean you should.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Spike

[nightsta1ker]

I agree that being a safe pilot requires a certain mindset, developed from a young age, and that no amount of training is going to change it (I think a lot of pilots just fake the funk to get their ratings and then go back to their usual decision making process).

 

However, there is nothing wrong with ADM, and it's hardly brainwashing. It's a tool that when properly used helps pilots make the right decision in a timely manner.

 

Whether a pilot chooses to act according to what they are taught falls back to that "coach-able" mindset that Spike mentioned. As the article states, we can offer the tools, but there are those that will always refuse to use them. How do we get rid of those types? I don't know the answer to that question, but I agree with Rod that more red tape is not the answer, if only because these bad boys will just ignore it anyway, and it will only further restrict the law abiding portion of the pilot community.

 

The fact that these statements are coming out of left field (at least according to mikemv), is another issue entirely.

[aeroscout]

I wonder, does the GA accident rate differentiate between those pilots who own their aircraft and those who rent?

 

I know renters generally have to go through a checkout process and periodic recurrent training, plus if they don't rent for a while (some once a month, others twice a month) then they have to fly with a company CFI again. Whereas owners only have to do a BFR (unless perhaps their insurance requires more?).

 

I would imagine that there are more accidents involving owners than renters, but I haven't done any research?

 

You bring up a very good point. To my knowledge those statistics are not tracked, so the only evidence to point to is personal experience, and anecdotal.

My experience over a 35 year career is that owner operators by and large are anywhere from less fit for flying to far less fit than a comparable professional pilot. I base this on being a long time CFI, and having experience training both professional pilots and owner/operators in the same environment.

Owner operators often will have to submit to insurance required annual training, but the approved list of companies often take their money, and give them whatever signoffs they need.

In the same environment, I have seen professional pilots held to a much higher standard as almost always, they aren't the ones paying for the training bill.

Doctors are notorious in the aviation industry. In my experience they live up to the myth. There are exceptions as in just about anything, but by and large doctors would be far better off hiring a professional pilot on an as needed basis.

 

As for brainwashing, that word may strike some as harsh, but in essence all newly learned knowledge that has the goal of changing people's thinking habits/patterns is brainwashing on some level. Maybe I could come up with a more gentle word, but I think it fits.

[nightsta1ker]

I still disagree about the brainwashing. It's a tool. When something comes up, instead of just reacting or ignoring it, apply a set of questions to it. Depending on the answers, you can now make an educated decision. It's a process. A mental tool. We pick these up all the time and probably don't even realize it. It's not a forced repatterning of your thoughts. ADM is simply a series of questions that you ask yourself when something in the flight changes unexpectedly.

Edited August 30, 2012 by nightsta1ker

[aeroscout]

I still disagree about the brainwashing. It's a tool. When something comes up, instead of just reacting or ignoring it, apply a set of questions to it. Depending on the answers, you can now make an educated decision. It's a process. A mental tool. We pick these up all the time and probably don't even realize it. It's not a forced repatterning of your thoughts. ADM is simply a series of questions that you ask yourself when something in the flight changes unexpectedly.

 

We might be arguing semantics, or polemics, but I think I understand your point, and by no means am I trying to de legitimize it.

[Bobsyouruncle]

I've been taught several ways to solve problems. All of those methods make sense, problem is when it comes time to solve a problem I never once think about these steps to solving problems. I just make a decision based on what I know and I can pretty much guarantee it's the same decision I would have made had I never learned how to solve problems.

 

So, what I've learned is this: some people just can't solve problems very well and no amount of teaching will prepare them. Unless you could specifically teach every possible decision you could make and what to do in those situations nothing will change. It sounds simple to say "solve problems" but think about how many scenarios that could cover. It's like trying to teach someone to use common sense.

 

It would be great if only the best and brightest were pilots like this was A Brave New World. I'm sure doctors, and chefs and police and gas station attendants wish there were better quality people in their fields too. But as long as this country is capitalist there will be a percentage of people who can afford to fly but probably shouldn't.

[aeroscout]

I've been taught several ways to solve problems. All of those methods make sense, problem is when it comes time to solve a problem I never once think about these steps to solving problems. I just make a decision based on what I know and I can pretty much guarantee it's the same decision I would have made had I never learned how to solve problems.

 

So, what I've learned is this: some people just can't solve problems very well and no amount of teaching will prepare them. Unless you could specifically teach every possible decision you could make and what to do in those situations nothing will change. It sounds simple to say "solve problems" but think about how many scenarios that could cover. It's like trying to teach someone to use common sense.

 

It would be great if only the best and brightest were pilots like this was A Brave New World. I'm sure doctors, and chefs and police and gas station attendants wish there were better quality people in their fields too. But as long as this country is capitalist there will be a percentage of people who can afford to fly but probably shouldn't.

 

Unless we can brainwash them. Sorry nightsta1ker, I couldn't resist.

[nightsta1ker]

I've been taught several ways to solve problems. All of those methods make sense, problem is when it comes time to solve a problem I never once think about these steps to solving problems. I just make a decision based on what I know and I can pretty much guarantee it's the same decision I would have made had I never learned how to solve problems.

 

So, what I've learned is this: some people just can't solve problems very well and no amount of teaching will prepare them. Unless you could specifically teach every possible decision you could make and what to do in those situations nothing will change. It sounds simple to say "solve problems" but think about how many scenarios that could cover. It's like trying to teach someone to use common sense.

 

It would be great if only the best and brightest were pilots like this was A Brave New World. I'm sure doctors, and chefs and police and gas station attendants wish there were better quality people in their fields too. But as long as this country is capitalist there will be a percentage of people who can afford to fly but probably shouldn't.

 

I think what you are saying, is that you already had a problem solving ability before you learned to fly. So you just use that. Good for you. For a lot of people this may be the case. But not everyone has that skill set, and not everyone has the ability to turn those skills towards an aviation situation without training. I do scenario injected training with my students all the time, and put them in scenarios where there is a problem. I get a lot of blank looks at first. But after teaching ADM and coaching them in applying those tools to a scenario, they learn how to adapt and make good decisions. Did your instructor not need to do this with you?

 

Edit: changed from scenario based training to scenario injected training.

Edited September 1, 2012 by nightsta1ker

[Bobsyouruncle]

 

 

I think what you are saying, is that you already had a problem solving ability before you learned to fly. So you just use that. Good for you. For a lot of people this may be the case. But not everyone has that skill set, and not everyone has the ability to turn those skills towards an aviation situation without training. I do scenario based training with my students all the time, and put them in scenarios where there is a problem. I get a lot of blank looks at first. But after teaching ADM and coaching them in applying those tools to a scenario, they learn how to adapt and make good decisions. Did your instructor not need to do this with you?

 

They did. I see things similiar to giving someone an engine chip light (where the emergency is to immediately shut the engine down to idle) in our dual engine aircraft in a situation where the the aircraft is too heavy to fly on one engine. Some people will immediately shut the engine down, followed by a low rotor warning followed by a crash. Can they be taught this was the wrong answer? Yes. Does that help them the next time they face a tricky scenario of a different variety? From what I can tell it does not. But maybe I'm wrong and it works better than I think.

 

I don't make all the right decisions all the time but I do see people that appear to be just not cut out for this. I'm in the military and I think there are a few mechanisms for getting rid of these people but they still get through sometimes. I would imagine in the civilian world they get weeded out through not finding paying jobs eventually. But I guess the question is do you believe all people can be taught or are some lost causes?

 

I know the general Nightstalker way in my day was different from the rest of the Army. We didn't try to polish turds, we got rid of them. Maybe I just need to change my old ways of thinking.

[aeroscout]

And with that

Bobsyouruncle,

 

you have delved into the meaty portion of the subject, to wit, can you polish a turd ?

[nightsta1ker]

I didn't get that luxury during my time in the Regiment. It's all DA select now . However, I was able to take a few turds and give them at least a dull gleam, if not a full blown polish. Some people are unreachable. I'm not arguing that. But I would say they are pretty far and few between. Most of the rest of the dangerous ones are just misguided, distracted, ordinary people. The kind you see weaving through traffic so they can get there 5 seconds faster than if they just went speed of traffic. They need a wake up call. And if that wake up call doesn't kill them, they usually snap out of it. I have seen pilots do 180s in both directions...

 

As far as the training. It does work when used correctly, and as long as these pilots we are training continue to use those tools throughout their career, I am relatively certain that most will survive the journey barring some unforseeable event.

 

My point is simply this: Whether you believe it or not, you did not go into aviation with the decision making skills you need to succeed. You were taught them. And your scenario about an engine chip.... that sounds hokey to me and if pilots are doing that then there is something wrong with the training they are getting.

 

Things that are a prerequisite for training:

 

Respect for aviation as a whole

Respect for the aircraft

Respect for the instructor

And last but certainly not least, a desire to excel.

 

If any of these things are missing, the training is not going to be as effective.

 

I have not gotten a student yet that I have had to have "the talk" with, but I'm sure it will happen eventually.

[eagle5]

After reading through the ADM chapter I thought that it just seemed like "common sense", and actually found it wierd that someone felt it necessary to write this stuff down into a chapter of its own.

 

Perhaps "good sense" isn't very "common" anymore?

[nightsta1ker]

After reading through the ADM chapter I thought that it just seemed like "common sense", and actually found it wierd that someone felt it necessary to write this stuff down into a chapter of its own.

 

Perhaps "good sense" isn't very "common" anymore?

 

I agree completely. Though I have to ask, was it ever really 'common' to begin with?

 

On the other hand, common sense it may seem, but putting it to practice in the air can be a daunting challenge for students who are still getting used to flying. Let's not forget where we came from.

[eagle5]

I agree completely. Though I have to ask, was it ever really 'common' to begin with?

 

On the other hand, common sense it may seem, but putting it to practice in the air can be a daunting challenge for students who are still getting used to flying. Let's not forget where we came from.

 

As I get older I find myself taking for granted the things I was taught during my 12 years of public education, thinking that if I was taught that, then surely the generations that follow are too?

 

...then I go to a job interview wearing a suit (the very suit I bought years ago specifically for job interviews) and see the other applicants wearing baggy jeans and golf shirts so oversized they may as well be a dress!

 

Yeah, maybe "good sense" was never really "common"! I guess we all just pick it up somewhere along the way?,...hopefully!

[nightsta1ker]

...then I go to a job interview wearing a suit (the very suit I bought years ago specifically for job interviews) and see the other applicants wearing baggy jeans and golf shirts so oversized they may as well be a dress!

 

I think we just figured out why the unemployment rate in this country is so high!

[Bobsyouruncle]

I didn't get that luxury during my time in the Regiment. It's all DA select now . However, I was able to take a few turds and give them at least a dull gleam, if not a full blown polish. Some people are unreachable. I'm not arguing that. But I would say they are pretty far and few between. Most of the rest of the dangerous ones are just misguided, distracted, ordinary people. The kind you see weaving through traffic so they can get there 5 seconds faster than if they just went speed of traffic. They need a wake up call. And if that wake up call doesn't kill them, they usually snap out of it. I have seen pilots do 180s in both directions...

 

As far as the training. It does work when used correctly, and as long as these pilots we are training continue to use those tools throughout their career, I am relatively certain that most will survive the journey barring some unforseeable event.

 

My point is simply this: Whether you believe it or not, you did not go into aviation with the decision making skills you need to succeed. You were taught them. And your scenario about an engine chip.... that sounds hokey to me and if pilots are doing that then there is something wrong with the training they are getting.

 

Things that are a prerequisite for training:

 

Respect for aviation as a whole

Respect for the aircraft

Respect for the instructor

And last but certainly not least, a desire to excel.

 

If any of these things are missing, the training is not going to be as effective.

 

I have not gotten a student yet that I have had to have "the talk" with, but I'm sure it will happen eventually.

 

Not hokey at all. I don't know, that is what we do to see where people are. Give them scenarios where your first reaction will get you into trouble. Ever think about what you would do during an emergency in IMC? Things could be very different. Electrical fire, turn off all power and now how do you get out of the clouds? Things like that.

[nightsta1ker]

Not hokey at all. I don't know, that is what we do to see where people are. Give them scenarios where your first reaction will get you into trouble. Ever think about what you would do during an emergency in IMC? Things could be very different. Electrical fire, turn off all power and now how do you get out of the clouds? Things like that.

 

The Army has always done things their own way, and that way has always been a bit harsh. When I was progressing from RL3 to RL1 CE my FI used a sawed off broom handle to make on the spot corrections. After a few weeks I needed a new helmet because mine had been voided. Endless repetition or blunt force trauma are the two ways they teach you things in the Army. I didn't always agree with this 'sink or swim' teaching mentality. In the civilian world we talk about these types of things first so the student has a baseline, THEN we pull the what if card in flight and see if they remember what they were taught.

 

Now, if I had an electrical fire in flight while IMC I wouldn't turn the master switch off and lose all my references, but having a fire in the cockpit is no joke! I would probably enter an auto and hope that the ceiling is high enough to get a decent look at the ground before we flare.... But if you don't TEACH that, just expect them to know already, you are setting them up for failure. Yes, some people are smart enough to figure this stuff out on their own. And an office discussion might yield the correct response, but when you're in the air, there is a whole new element of task saturation, and adding stress to that can quickly overload a person's mental capacity. This is why the CORRECT response must be previously drilled into their head, because when a pilot gets overloaded, they go into automatic mode. What they do after that reflects the level of training they got. If they were trained properly, they will do the right things. If they weren't, they likely will likely freeze up, or do the incorrect procedure that they were trained to do.

[Pohi]

I see what you are saying nightstalker, but I'd rather be flying partial panel through the clouds looking for a way out, than on fire trying to auto (hoping the cockpit doesn't fill with smoke before I smack the ground)

 

The second option seems to be just helping the devil out by preheating its next arrival.

 

But, then again, it's hard to tell until really faced with the choice.