Help with a research project?

[Inconceivable]

I would be very appreciative if you could take a few minute to complete an on-line survey asking about your opinions and experiences in instrument flight training.

If you could forward the link to any other pilots you know that would be great. The larger the sample size, the better the results.

Thanks in advance!


Instrument Survey

 

[VW Pilot]

FAA...........those sneaky bastards...

 

[VW Pilot]

Getting your degree??

 

[Goose Egg]

Your welcome.

 

[AC560]

Not sure what conclusion you are trying to reach but your questions are not that great.

Example There is no need to demonstrate analog competency in flight for the Instrument Rating. I would agree with that on the premise that No additional checkride should be required, but an instructor endorsement should be required prior to exercising Instrument Rating privileges in an analog or digital instrumented aircraft, similar to high-performance and tailwheel endorsements was true (in reverse if a person trained on glass). It would appear you are trying to use the questions to justify an answer as opposed to openly surveying a group of people.

In my opinion there needs to be some rework on instrument training especially in the area of GPS/WAAS (glass is falls somewhere in here as well).

 

[Goose Egg]

I know this is a little off the subject, but just what the holy heck do chandelles and lazy 8's have to do with commercial flying? The last time I did one of those things for myself was my own Commercial checkride, and the only reason I have even given them any thought at all was to help other people get ready for their commercial checkrides.

In other words, not only does the Instrument rating need to be reworked, but the commercial one as well. I think both should be more geared towards LOFT (line-oriented flight training). And since a lot of real-life flying is done IFR, the Commercial certificate should be an IFR deal.

 

[nosehair]

just what the holy heck do chandelles and lazy 8's have to do with commercial flying?

Smooooothness, my dear Mr. Goose Egg.

The objective of these maneuvers is to learn smooth coordinated mastery of the airplane in a continuously changing pitch, bank, and yaw.

Do you really believe we can become masters of the machine we control by merely flying line-oriented minimum changing pitch, bank, and yaw?

You got to git in dere an' throw that thang around some to be it's master.

 

[avbug]

The requirements for most of the certificates have been sorely lacking for many years, as so often evidenced by the fact that the average applicant requires more instruction and more flight experience than the minimum prescribed by the regulation.

So far as the survey, I found the questions to appear to hold a particular agenda, and to be quite mis-focused. One might as well require separate endorsements for each different avionics component in the airplane...check out on the Garmin, check out on the Chelton, check out on the Primus...

Aircraft have always had vastly differing systems, including avionics suites or presentations. This doesn't require additional regulation. Or endorsements. Or ratings. Simply because one learns on a steam gauge doesn't mean one can't easily transition to and use an electronic panel display featuring the same information. Even if some transition is required, mandating it by regulation is rather pointless.

Personally I haven't flown one of the new Garmin 1000 equipped 172's or 182's. I can't afford to, and don't really care to. However, were I to elect to do so, I'd certainly undertake the necessary study and preparation, and obtain additional training before attempting to use that system...I don't need an endorsement or regulation to get me to do so.

Further, whereas the survey made reference to flight training devices, the efficacy of simulators was left as a silent point. One can obtain a full type rating in a simulator for an advanced airplane without ever getting into the air...the issue of whether "transition" training between analog and glass is ridiculous when couched as an issue of whether or not it should be conducted in flight.

 

[Goose Egg]

I think your logic is valid and I see where you are coming from.

The objective of these maneuvers is to learn smooth coordinated mastery of the airplane in a continuously changing pitch, bank, and yaw.

Yeah, I've read the AFH too.

Do you really believe we can become masters of the machine we control by merely flying line-oriented minimum changing pitch, bank, and yaw?

Well, I suppose that all depends on what you mean by "masters." If you mean absolutely flawless hand-flying skills, then I guess the answer would be no. But if you mean solid decision making skills, aircraft systems and emergency procedures knowledge, which is what I consider to be "aircraft mastery," then the answer would have to be "yes, you can become an aircraft master without demonstrating proficiency in a collection of arbitrary maneuvers."

I think we send far too many new commercial pilots out into the world who can fly a perfect lazy eight (if such a thing ever existed), yet couldn't fly their way out of a paper bag when it comes to "real world" scenarios.

You got to git in dere an' throw that thang around some to be it's master.

I guess my question here is when did we start considering a commercial pilot certificate as aircraft "mastery." We all know that someone with 250 hours has a lot to learn. Heck, I've got 2000 hours, and I'VE got a lot to learn, and I wouldn't consider myself the "master" of the airplane that I fly by any means.

Ok, so a chandelle is about demonstrating smoothness, and demonstrating control. So what's the point if the student gains proficiency in those maneuvers for that checkride, and then looses proficiency from disuse. They had smoothness, and they had control, but they don't have it anymore because they gained it through rote "monkey see monkey do" instruction techniques. I mean, I guess there are some guys that go out and practice that stuff for fun (likely because they can't think of anything better to do), but I haven't met any of them.

Now don't misunderstand me here. I am a huge proponent of a flight student gaining extra proficiency in hand flying. I think every pilot should take an aerobatics course at one point or another. Smoothness and control are very important, it's just that I don't think that the commercial certification course is the proper venue to teach that sort of thing. Commercial flying should be about learning how to operate in the "system." It always amazed me that the Commercial Pilot Certificate really had very little to do with commercial flying.

-Goose

 

[AC560]

Ok, so a chandelle is about demonstrating smoothness, and demonstrating control. So what's the point if the student gains proficiency in those maneuvers for that checkride, and then looses proficiency from disuse. They had smoothness, and they had control, but they don't have it anymore because they gained it through rote "monkey see monkey do" instruction techniques.

This could be said of any test, take enough SAT practice tests and a person with a 75 IQ can get a perfect score.

The commercial maneuvers teach a lot about how a plane flies. All the maneuvers have shifting characteristics which you have to learn to counter with varying degrees of bank, pitch, and rudder. If you devote the time to truly learn the maneuvers and the concept behind them you will be very well prepared to decipher more difficult RL scenarios. It is one of the better check rides in my opinion.

 

[Goose Egg]

If you devote the time to truly learn the maneuvers and the concept behind them you will be very well prepared to decipher more difficult RL scenarios...

Such as? I mean, I guess there's always the box canyon scenario with the chandelle, but if that's all ya got...

And remember, you are talking to a guy that taught all his instrument students spin entries and recoveries, so I'm completely in favor of "learning how an airplane flies." It's just that I think to attach those kinds of maneuvers to the so-called "commercial" certification is just sort of non-sequiter. In my opinion, commercial training should be much more "real world" based, i.e. IFR/LOFT. I think the preparation level of the typical student to fly commercially in the "real world" with a wet commercial ticket speaks for itself. Fine motor skill mastery should have been demonstrated prior to this point.

-Goose