That's one of them I'm talking about. Is it easy to fool them?The final o.k came from the FAA examiner.
That's one of them I'm talking about. Is it easy to fool them?The final o.k came from the FAA examiner.
I don't care how much extra money I would make, I would never encourage a student to keep trying if it was obvious they just don't get it and are dangerous.
Some pilots ( even after they somehow got their license) do not know how weak they are.
As an EAA Eagle mentor, in recent years I've seen a disturbing trend, flight instructors who are relatively young and inexperienced, the ink still wet on their certs, teaching other pilots only to build up the 1500 hours they need for their ATP to move on with their career. They may love flying but they don't love teaching, and even if they did, getting commercial+CFI can be done in as few as 250 hours which is nowhere near enough to have the experience and judgment to teach others well. Incidentally, this rare trifecta of desire, skill, and experience is what makes good CFIs so valuable and unique. These fresh young CFIs tend to teach flying by the numbers, by rote rather than by practice and understanding, they haven't been flying long enough to know what they don't know. This leads to new pilots being trained superficially as regulation memorizers and aircraft systems operators rather than developing the skills and understanding to turn off the systems and fly the airplane.I think it’s more about poor pilot skills, period.
...
Not really a pilot in other words.
Yep. If a student fails his checkride, it reflects poorly on his CFI. The FAA expects a reasonably high pass rate else it suggests the CFI isn't teaching everything he should be. So it's the CFI's responsibillity not to sign off a student for the checkride unless he believes that student has the skils and knowledge to fly safely and legally, and will pass the checkride. But ultimately it is up to the DPE (designated pilot examiner) to determine whether that student passes. If both the CFI and DPE pencil-whip a license for a student who shouldn't be flying, then Darwin usually claims that student sooner or later (as in this case). I'll add that as a strong believer in personal responsibility, the pilot candidate should also ask himself how good are his skills and knowledge, does he feel that he can be responsible and safe not only for himself but also for his passengers?The final o.k came from the FAA examiner.
IME, it is not easy to fool a DPE. The system works well most of the time, training pilots to be safe and responsible and weeding out those who cannot. If that weren't the case, it would be raining small airplanes.That's one of them I'm talking about. Is it easy to fool them?
That's one of them I'm talking about. Is it easy to fool them?
Would you elaborate?One of the BIG reasons FO’s fail Captain upgrades is due to low situational awareness.
You don't seem to need me to answer it if you're telling me what it is.Would you elaborate?
Piloting an aircraft IS situational awareness. Its the number one thing you have to do to fly a plane.
If someone needs any kind of training to understand that in order to go up, to overcome gravitational force, one needs power, that person shouldn’t be next to any kind of machine.The above comments about not understanding the aircraft systems are correct. She also seems to have had a fundamental lack of basic airmanship - for example in one video wondering why the airplane won't climb when she didn't add power. This is normally covered in pilot training, one can't even solo without demonstrating those skills, let alone get a pilots license, though her case seems to be an exception.
My impression is that she was pencil-whipped through the training process without really understanding or demonstrating the skills. That's partly but not entirely her fault, instructors and examiners are supposed to know better.
I was just curious about some of the ways that a professional pilot might lose situational awareness in a severe enough way that he would fail a sim check, given that maintaining that is obviously a big part of the job.You don't seem to need me to answer it if you're telling me what it is.
A few examples of this I've seen mentioned in crash documentaries are situations like a steep dive, flying too slow (losing lift), and too close to the ground. I don't know how you can't notice if your nose is pointed down or going to slow, I guess this would be loss of situational awareness.I was just curious about some of the ways that a professional pilot might lose situational awareness in a severe enough way that he would fail a sim check, given that maintaining that is obviously a big part of the job.
That's really fast, and a steep angle. That makes me really wonder what happened to cause that scenario.Supposedly they recovered the Gopro cameras she was using. So it's very likely they have video of the entire accident, beginning to end. That may help in determining the exact cause.... Assuming they weren't damaged too badly.
I read that the airspeed was somewhere around 252 knots at impact. At a 60 degree downward angle.
Great comments. I soloed many years back. I'm hoping to go back and at some point get my pilots license. My instructor was very adamant about "Aviating" ie flying the plane. His rule of thumb was to get yourself on the ground safely. If you don't aviate you could become a statistic.As an EAA Eagle mentor, in recent years I've seen a disturbing trend, flight instructors who are relatively young and inexperienced, the ink still wet on their certs, teaching other pilots only to build up the 1500 hours they need for their ATP to move on with their career. They may love flying but they don't love teaching, and even if they did, getting commercial+CFI can be done in as few as 250 hours which is nowhere near enough to have the experience and judgment to teach others well. Incidentally, this rare trifecta of desire, skill, and experience is what makes good CFIs so valuable and unique. These fresh young CFIs tend to teach flying by the numbers, by rote rather than by practice and understanding, they haven't been flying long enough to know what they don't know. This leads to new pilots being trained superficially as regulation memorizers and aircraft systems operators rather than developing the skills and understanding to turn off the systems and fly the airplane.
That said, most CFIs -- especially the ones with grey hair -- are pilot's pilots with thousands of hours flying in many different circumstances who have been there, done that, love flying, keep their skills and knowledge sharp and love sharing that knowledge with new pilots. They are certainly not doing it for the money, that's for sure.
Yep. If a student fails his checkride, it reflects poorly on his CFI. The FAA expects a reasonably high pass rate else it suggests the CFI isn't teaching everything he should be. So it's the CFI's responsibillity not to sign off a student for the checkride unless he believes that student has the skils and knowledge to fly safely and legally, and will pass the checkride. But ultimately it is up to the DPE (designated pilot examiner) to determine whether that student passes. If both the CFI and DPE pencil-whip a license for a student who shouldn't be flying, then Darwin usually claims that student sooner or later (as in this case). I'll add that as a strong believer in personal responsibility, the pilot candidate should also ask himself how good are his skills and knowledge, does he feel that he can be responsible and safe not only for himself but also for his passengers?
IME, it is not easy to fool a DPE. The system works well most of the time, training pilots to be safe and responsible and weeding out those who cannot. If that weren't the case, it would be raining small airplanes.
I think that some folks (maybe an increasing amount) simply do not understand these basic core tennets... The absolute basic bits of physics, chemistry and so on, even if they "know" them. Your example of of riding a bike is a great one... But who has really thought about it as they've ridden? Or any other core aspects as they've experienced them?If someone needs any kind of training to understand that in order to go up, to overcome gravitational force, one needs power, that person shouldn’t be next to any kind of machine.
That skill is obtained on bike with helping wheels. Uphill, more push. By year 7 kids get it.
Gotcha now.I was just curious about some of the ways that a professional pilot might lose situational awareness in a severe enough way that he would fail a sim check, given that maintaining that is obviously a big part of the job.
One of the Youtube crash analyzers, (I want to say it was Juan Brown), said it was possible that because she didn't understand the autopilot, or how to correctly use it, she got the airplane in a very heavy nose down trim, that the autopilot was fighting against. (Her altitude was all over the place in the last couple of minutes before the plunge).That's really fast, and a steep angle. That makes me really wonder what happened to cause that scenario.
The above comments about not understanding the aircraft systems are correct. She also seems to have had a fundamental lack of basic airmanship - for example in one video wondering why the airplane won't climb when she didn't add power. This is normally covered in pilot training, one can't even solo without demonstrating those skills, let alone get a pilots license, though her case seems to be an exception.
My impression is that she was pencil-whipped through the training process without really understanding or demonstrating the skills. That's partly but not entirely her fault, instructors and examiners are supposed to know better.
I have no idea how the guts of a Gopro work. But that is a tremendous impact, that I'm sure produced one very ugly crash site. The last few seconds of that flight had to be downright terrifying!
So are you saying, (correct me if I'm wrong), if the Gopro was uploading in real time as everything was taking place, would it then not matter how pulverized the actual camera was at impact?GoPros use micro SDs. Some (maybe all recent ones) can also upload directly to GoPro cloud storage.
You would have to own the airplane. Nobody is going to rent you an airplane without all the documentation.Curious, what stops me from flying without having a license? There cops for planes?
So are you saying, (correct me if I'm wrong), if the Gopro was uploading in real time as everything was taking place, would it then not matter how pulverized the actual camera was at impact?