At 10:00 AM 24/09/03 +0930, you wrote:
>Hi Mike B. and others,
>
>> If you assume the pilots aren't all suicidal then I can only assume they
>aren't properly trained which includes developing the judgement to avoid
>critical situations and the skill to make them non critical when they do
>occur.
>
>Even the best trained and most experienced pilot can go off and make a
>mistake that results in an accident (history provides illustrations here).
>So to blame training is not the entire answer.
You will get down to normal human imperfection and the inherent danger of
the operation at some point. We ain't there. Look at aviation accident
reports. Very occasionally you see where some poor bastard has done
everything right and still crashes.
>
>Apart from the annual flight review (hopefully), many pilots may fly around
>unobserved and develop bad habits. An annual flight review is only a
>snapshot of a pilot's ability. Expanding the annual flight review to include
>say, on outlanding check may be commendable, but not realistically feasible
>for a small club with a small number of instructors and members.
>
>It is up to the integrity and self discipline of the pilot not to be tempted
>by superficially more convenient (but more dangerous) decisions (i.e.
>stretching final glide to avoid landing out), maintain a good look out (the
>subject of a GFA ops directive), keeping ahead of the aircraft (i.e.
>outlanding paddock selection), and avoiding showing off in potentially
>dangerous situations (low altitude high speed competition finishes when
>they are not needed).
>
>This is stuff that is not necessarily taught, but often aquired by less
>experienced pilots from more experienced pilots, on top of the intrinsic
>personality of the pilot.
That's about what I said. The training is deficient in that those things
aren't taught or not taught properly. There is a lot of bullshit spouted
around the average gliding club bar and this is a bad place for an
inexperienced pilot to learn this stuff.
>
>
>Some questions:
>1) A pilot may pass an annual flight review with flying colours and then go
>off and do something stupid, why?
That just means the AFR is useless. It is a feel good exercise in backside
covering particularly in a gliding club situation where everyone is seen to
take off and land. It is pretty obvious by casual observation who is in
control and who is marginal. Unfortunately little is done about this even
when it is pointed out to those nominally "in charge" and there is a
reluctance of the ordinary pilots to even point out these things because of
a widespread idea that "the instructors are responsible for safety".
The BFR concept was introduced in the USA in the early 70's I think it was
in response to a bad trend in GA accidents rates and we adopted it here in
GA too. There is little evidence it reduces accident rates among pilots
with more than 500 hours.
>2) Should we mandate an outlanding check as part of an annual flight review?
We can put more rules and requirements on and make gliding even less
attractive or convenient. It is already far more restrictive than private
power flying.
>3) Should we use psychological testing to screen potential pilots (i.e the
>suicidal ;-0 ) and exclude ones who have a careless or cavalier attitude
>(equality and discrimination issues here)?
We could begin by stopping pretending that gliding is for everyone as the
current GFA printed propaganda claims and advising some potential pilots
that maybe after a few flights (or sooner) that if they want to live long
and healthy lives that they should find another pursuit.
>4) If you think training is to blame:
>a) What specific critical skills training would you propose?
Insist on 500 hours solo accident free before beginning instructor
training. That way you might at least know something useful to teach and
will have developed judgement which hopefully you can pass on.
Flight training in general is still heavily biased by the WW2 training
system which worked really well for its purpose - train lots of aerial
cannon fodder. It lost lots of people who didn't make the grade and killed
plenty also. We cannot afford to do that. There have been advances in
knowledge about how people learn and retain things since and also efforts
at teaching aviation judgement have been successful. We also aren't
teaching gullible 18 year olds in a military situation. There's room for a
lot of development here.
>b) How reproducible would it be?
Lets try it.
>c) How predictive would it be of a pilot's future behaviour?
Once you have been motivated to fly 500 hours solo you have probably flown
cross country extensively and got into the habit of doing at least 50 hours
a year. That should at least mean we have motivated, current and competent
instructors.(Might be fewer of them but that would be good too).
At present an instructor is all too likely to be a low hours/experience
pilot who has done a half baked GFA instructors course. Their accident rate
doesn't seem to be any better than the non instructors. It would be
interesting to see their accident rates per hour compared to cross country
pilots who do 50 hours up per year.
You imply that adults can't be trusted and require constant supervision
after they have been properly trained.
You are assuming proper training. When reality becomes puzzling it helps to
question your basic assumptions.
I'll stick with the first paragraph.
Mike
Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments
phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784
Int'l + 61 429 355784
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: www.borgeltinstruments.com
--
* You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list.
* To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message
* or with "help" in the body of the message for more information.
