http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=bca&id=news/bca0710p3.xml

Jul 9, 2010

David Collogan

A notice from the FAA that it may require pilots to meet tougher minimum training and experience standards before serving as copilots in FAR Part 121 flight operations is generating considerable angst throughout the aviation community. Some fear the more-stringent standards could significantly curtail the number of student pilots, siphon experienced pilots to the airlines from other segments of the industry and ultimately result in a nationwide pilot shortage.

The concern results from an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in response to the NTSB’s investigation of the Feb. 12, 2009, crash of a Colgan Air DHC-8 into a house during a night approach in light snow and mist to Buffalo-Niagara, N.Y., International Airport.
David Collogan dlcollogan@gmail.com

The NTSB determined that the captain’s inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover. Among the contributing factors cited were the flight crew’s failure to monitor airspeed and adhere to sterile cockpit procedures, and the captain’s failure to effectively manage the flight. An examination of the captain’s training records revealed that he had flunked numerous flight checks, some because of an inability to demonstrate proficiency in basic airmanship.

The Buffalo accident, and the multiple deficiencies revealed, would no doubt have caused the FAA to take a close look at training standards without further prompting. But the agency doesn’t have any choice. Congress is prodding the regulators to take action.

Both the House and Senate rushed to enact legislation (H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009, and S.1451, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act), both mandating tougher training standards. Differences between those measures would have to be resolved in a House-Senate conference committee.

The strong congressional reaction is not surprising given the circumstances of the Buffalo crash and the publicity it received. But we must reiterate our long-held view that few creatures are more dangerous than members of Congress reacting to a high-profile event by rushing to legislate technical standards that would be best addressed by federal regulators. You see, if a federal agency proposes a regulation that turns out to be flawed, it can be fixed or amended after a public comment period. Fixing a bad law, however, is akin to parting the Red Sea — it pretty much requires a miracle.

Both the House and Senate bills essentially require all Part 121 airline pilots (including first officers) to hold Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificates, which could be obtained only after an applicant had logged a minimum of 1,500 flight hours. Currently, Part 121 first officers need a minimum of 250 hours. It’s worth noting that the 47-year-old Colgan Air captain had accumulated 3,379 flight hours and the 24-year-old copilot 2,244 hours.

Unsurprisingly, the FAA’s ANPRM reflects congressional will. However, a chorus of those submitting comments on the proposal emphatically rejects the 1,500 hour/ATP requirement for Part 121 first officers to occupy the right seat.

GAMA said such a requirement could result in an adverse effect on safety because “pilots would no longer focus on getting the best training to prepare them for 121 operations, but rather the cheapest and easiest.”

The Regional Airline Association echoed that concern, noting that “raising the existing, arbitrary total flight hour requirement could have the unintended and negative effect of reducing the number of highly qualified airline pilot professionals without any demonstrable safety benefit.” Simply building hours can be done quickly and cheaply “in ways that do not meaningfully prepare students for airline operations (e.g., towing banners),” the RAA said.

Using an aircraft rental rate of $90 per hour, the NATA calculated that “a pilot would be required to spend $112,500 to acquire sufficient total time to qualify for an ATP certificate and that experience would be gained in the most simple of aircraft . . . without providing any exposure to Part 121 aircraft or operating procedures.” That, said NATA, “will do little but discourage pilots from pursuing a Part 121 career.”

NATA also criticized the “piecemeal approach” of the ANRPM, which it said “will lead to the shifting of the training and evaluation burden from the air carrier to the individual pilot and likely will only exacerbate any existing issues with Part 121 pilot proficiency and professionalism.”

The AOPA said an increase in hiring requirements by the air carriers would likely discourage potential pilots from entering aviation due to higher costs and longer time to qualify. “Long term this is a problem for the entire aviation community,” the AOPA said. “With fewer student pilots, an eventual pilot shortage may occur. It may be difficult or impossible to staff the vital jobs provided by general aviation as well as the nation’s air carriers.”

The association, like many others who filed comments, observed that “experience is not measured in flight time alone. Safety is a combination of experience and training in specific aircraft type and in specific flight conditions,” which is more important than logging a specific number of flight hours.

The deficiencies uncovered in the Buffalo investigation cry out for improvements in airline training programs. Will the FAA embrace industry calls for truly effective changes that actually improve safety? Or will congressional will prevail with an overreaching total flight time requirement offering only illusory safety payoffs while dramatically increasing training costs? There’s a lot riding on the answers to those two questions.

“If SIDs were only applicable to radar airports why don’t they call them ‘SRIDs’?”.

This comment had me lmao. Why?

In RSA and a number of other less well endowed countries, the powers that be (CATCOs and CAAs) decided that airports don’t require departure procedures unless they have radar.

The response above was from my colleague, which really tickled my fancy.

He further pointed out correctly, that “Surely it’s more important to have a DP at an airport that doesn’t have radar?”

I’d love to hear what the ATF members think about this one, especially those from countries that do understand what and why departure procedures are applied.

Through my research for our Cessna Training Manual series, I came Austin Collins, the chief pilot for Flight Express, who is obviously passionate about aviation, aviation safety, and ensuring and instilling professionalism in his chosen career.

At his website under the following link http://www.austincollins.com/fex.shtml
is some great information from helping others who want to find out more about learning to fly (a very informative and accurate account including all the FAQs), to an informative “Austins Very Easy Guide to…” Series. Much of this is aimed at the FAA system, and also, which is mentioned specifically aimed at Part 135 operations in the FAA system, but the general nature of the content is of relevant to all aviators, and it is not difficult to distinguish which parts do not apply.

GoNumbers particularly likes the humorous but accurate way Austin brings his message across, for example, I love this part in the radio manual:

Let’s consider a transmission. Then let’s replace all the unnecessary words with the word “mayonnaise.” Then we’ll hold the mayonnaise and see how much it cleans up the call.
“And, SoCal Approach, this is, uh, Cessna eight zero one three eight with you.”
If we replace the unnecessary words with the word “mayonnaise” we get:
“Mayonnaise, SoCal Approach, mayonnaise, mayonnaise, Cessna eight zero one three eight mayonnaise.”
All the pilot really needed to say was:
“SoCal Approach, Cessna eight zero one three eight.”

So often I get frustrated with part 135ers and some instructors who don’t hold the mayonnaise!
(My personal favourite was “Charter ABC - Any traffic in the training area?”)

The Complete Series is as follows:
􀂾 Vol. 1 – Austin’s Very Easy Guide to Legal IFR Flight Planning Under Part 135
􀂾 Vol. 2 – Austin’s Very Easy Guide to On-Demand Part 135 Flight/Duty/Rest Rules
􀂾 Vol. 3 – Austin’s Very Easy Guide to Part 135 Daily Duties and Responsibilities
􀂾 Vol. 4 – Austin’s Very Easy Guide to Proper Radio Phraseology and Technique
􀂾 Vol. 5 – Austin’s Very Easy Guide to Winter Operations
􀂾 Vol. 6 – Austin’s Very Easy Guide to Passing Your Part 135 IFR-PIC Checkride

There’s a link on the side of this page under professional.

A common saying, modified for aviation:

“Better to open your mouth and appear stupid, than demonstrate without a doubt that you are.”

Those of you in aviation will appreciate the irony of the reversal of the old saying: “Better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are stupid, than open it an demonstrate you are.”, and how well this adaption suits both training and aviation industries, and possibly many others.

Another one that springs to mind from that is, “There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.”

Pay for Training is a concept that comes and goes with the ups and downs of pilot hiring cycles. Whenever there is a downturn in the economy, or a major event that affects air travel, for example the SARS virus or 911, the hiring cycle swings from an employees market to an employers market, as in any industry. When the hiring cycle is on the up side for pilots, you can walk into an entry level turbine job with a few hundred hours, or join an airline with as little as 1500 hours. You don\’t need a type rating to get a contract or a permanent position in a country which you are a non-patriot, and instructors are always in demand. When the hiring cycle is on the down side, type rated pilots with medium or heavy jet experience sit on the ground or fly in positions flying single engine piston charters. Instructing jobs are even becoming difficult to get, and if you do get one, everyone is fighting for the hours, employers can name their price, and attach a list of demands to it. If you want to stay in the industry, and in a job that will support your family, you often have to shift countries.

It is difficult to predict when these cycles come and go, and also very difficult to wait them out. Which is why pay for training exists. If you happen to be just qualified, or you are made redundant, or for any number of reasons find yourself in a position of not having a flying job that pays the bills, in a down cycle you have to either know someone, be lucky, be prepared to do anything for any amount, or have some kind of edge on your CV to get a job. Waiting it out, which could take up to three years, may not be an option - either you have too little time or too low hours, or your psyche can\’t take being grounded (meaning you are only flying a few times a year to keep current, since your ground job or your family commitments doesn\’t afford anything more).

Pay for training offers various options to get into the market, but at a cost. And is this cost to your pocket only, or is it a burden on air safety?

If it\’s the first time you\’ve heard this term, you might be thinking what is this all about, since, apart from very lucky sponsored cadets, we all have to pay for training don\’t we? Pay for Training is a term that relates to the practice of charging students for flying time in a commercial flight operation, or charging an excessive amount for a type rating because you are guaranteed a flying position for a limited time once you qualify.

This offer benefits to students, since in a depressed market, a type rating alone will not get you a job, you need a type rating plus experience, and no one except perhaps a few movie stars, royalty, and arab sheiks, can afford to pay for this required experience, which can be anywhere from 50 to 1000 hours on type depending on the aircraft and the company. When you are an employee for a company, this experience is completed on company aircraft with training captains, so you might again be wondering, what the difference is.

The major difference, and the major danger, is when the dollar begins to rule the selection process.

In any commercial operation where you are being paid to fly, even in the best of economic and aviation industry conditions, there is a selection process followed that ensures the company selects pilots who are, in the companies view point, the best person for the job. This of course does not guarantee that they are always the best for the job, but it does provide some checks and balances to ensure that pilots with dangerous attitudes or major deficiencies in training or ability are flying far paying passengers.

To sum up this intro article on pay for training; It\’s a great way for employers to cover costs of training, and for those that need to to shortcut selection processes that are otherwise stacked against them because of nationality, age, or other discriminatory or unfair factors, however both parties need to ensure integrity is maintained and above all safety standards are not compromised.

And a final word of warning for pilots who consider this route: be very sure that you know what you are paying for, make sure that the company is reputable - with a high standard of reliable references, and that courses, completion standards, and employment offers are based on ability and not ego pandering.

Keep the radar up for more on this matter soon.

This post has been attributed to ALPA, the American airline pilot’s association. We used it to back up a commonly used phrase in the MCC (multi-crew cooperation) course I teach that most typical pilot personalities should not be allowed in the modern multi-crew environment. I like to try to cushion the blow by adding the word ‘male’ to the ‘most typical pilots’ phrase - but reading this, unfortunately, it’s all too true! Fortunately, the statement that being aware of your deficiencies is the first step to fixing them, is also true. And courses like MCC and CRM, if taken seriously and not just as a box to tick, are helping us all with the rest of the steps, to ensure the additional crew members do help make the operation safer.

The Pilot Personality (courtesy of ALPA)

Pilots are a distinct segment of the general population. In addition to flying skills, pilots are selected for their personalities and for a distinct “pilot persona.” These characteristics make them safer pilots.
Pilots tend to be physically and mentally healthy. Pilots tend to be “reality based,” because by the very nature of their work they are constantly testing reality. There are those, however who would dispute this claim.
Pilots tend to be self-sufficient and may have difficulty functioning in team situations without CRM and other training. They have difficulty trusting anyone to do the job as well as they can. Pilots tend to be suspicious, even a little paranoid. In moderation, this quality serves them well within their environment and is, in fact, a quality that managements look for in the pilot personality. Outside the cockpit, this quality shows up in the tendency of many pilots to set two or three alarm clocks– even though he or she may generally wake up before any of these go off. The suspicious/paranoid tendency also affects the way pilots function in their private lives, as well.
Pilots tend to be intelligent but are typically not intellectually oriented. They like “toys”– boats, cars, motorcycles, big watches, etc. They are good at taking things apart, if not putting them back together. Pilots are concrete, practical, linear thinkers rather than abstract, philosophical, or theoretical. On a scale that ranges from analytically oriented to emotionally oriented, pilots tend to be toward the analytical end. They are extremely reality- and goal-oriented. They like lists showing concrete problems, not talking about them. This goal orientation tends towards the short term as opposed to the long term. Pilots are bimodal: on/off, black/white, good/bad, safe/unsafe, regulations/non-regulations.
Pilots are inclined to modify their environment rather than their own behaviour. Pilots need excitement; a 9-to-5 job would drive most pilots to distraction. Pilots are competitive, being driven by a need to achieve, and don’t handle failure particularly well. Pilots have a low tolerance for personal imperfection, and long memories of perceived injustices.
Pilots tend to be scanners, drawing conclusions rapidly about situational facts. Pilots scan people as if they were instruments; they draw conclusions at a glance rather than relying on long and emotion-laden conversations.
Pilots avoid introspection and have difficulty revealing, expressing, or even recognizing their feelings. When they do experience unwanted feelings, they tend to mask them, sometimes with humour or even anger. Being unemotional helps pilots deal with crises, but can make them insensitive toward the feelings of others. The spouses and children of pilots frequently complain that the pilot has difficulty expressing complex human emotions toward them.
This emotional “block” can create difficulty communicating. How many incidents or accidents have occurred due to poor communications? The vast majority of Professional Standards cases will be caused by poor communication.

I saw this discussion, on Cessna Owner Organisation’s forums , http://forums.cessnaowner.org/read/1/10123/page=2, pilots debating techniques to land a C182.

I had to add a bit of a rant, I’ll post it here, just in case the rant is felt unwelcome, so here it is:

C182s are just like any other plane with the odd difference:
They are less forgiving than C172s in terms of you must fly them at the right speeds, and you must apply positive control to keep them where you want them- they are quite twitchy, and too fast they balloon, too slow they drop! Especially with weight in the tail (the foam sometimes gets waterlogged and can cause different behaviour in trim).
I’ve seen students cock up landings, and I’ve cocked up a fair few myself when I was a relatively low time pilot.
A C182, IMHO, is not recommended for someone with low time (<60hours) but if you do try it, get some thorough training, and train till you really feel comfortable.
Landing techniques: All the Cessna high wings I have flown are quite happy with the same technique, only the speeds and weight on the controls change. This requires approach at the right speed, and height for the type of approach, then approaching the round out, smoothly power off, level off, then hold off, and, while level, wait for the tail to drop, which it will do as the speed drops if you keep the plane level - matching the amount of pull to the reduction in speed - avoiding a balloon or a sink, until the stall warning occurs. If this has been done at the right height, at this point you will be just off the ground, then simply the bum will drop and the main wheels will touch. (Easier said than done, of course!)
With a strong cross wind or flapless, you may want to touch down at a slightly higher speed.
(A colleague once said to me - advice on landing the C210: just get the a**e down, helped me tremendously, and 100% effective in reducing the potentially costly nose wheel landing, made me lol at the time, but I never forgot it)
Trimming up slightly if you find the elevator heavy for the flare, is quite acceptable, meaning you are flying the approach pushing forward. Glide approaches are fine but tend to be quite steep and bad for the engine, so power on approaches (approach not flare) are the recommended, and probably fit with the normal circuit approach more.
Keeping power on in the flare: my advice, to everyone I’ve seen who tries it, and I’ve heard it especially in C182s, C210s and C310s, is poor technique to cover up poor handling, and a few circuits later I have them convinced it’s not needed. Really sorry to be harsh, but it’s not recommended by the book, and quite unsafe, if you fly a technique all the time, there’s a chance you’ll do it when you need not to be (eg short field - see the Qantas accident B747 with motor habit on regular non use of thrust reverse).
My advice, and sorry this also may not be welcome advice, but to help curb the C182 accident rate, grab an instructor you know and like, who has some experience on the C182, and do some circuits, especially in bumpy crosswinds or on short field conditions.
Hate to see a good plane get a bad rep, personally it’s really my favourite of all I’ve flown from 150s to 737s, although the C150A comes a close second.
Hope this may be of help.

I’ve decided to start a new cause: It’s called the [b]”Save a Plane”[/b] cause.
It’s not really a foundation as such, since I don’t want to go through the paperwork of setting one up, but, if you buy a book you can help directly to Save a Plane: the one you’re flying.

And while you’re pursuing the great cause of saving a plane, you could find yourself contributing to an even greater cause - Saving a Passenger.
Lives which may have been placed unnecessarily at risk, perhaps not by you, but by the system. The system you as a pilot we unknowingly submitted to. That is the system of pilot training typically available in the General Aviation sector, fuelled by deregulation of flight schools and instructor standards, limited national funding, and the lack of importance since small planes equal small loss of lives. A system which allows an instructor to teach with little more than a conversion himself (trust me I\’ve seen it and done it), justified by the logic, it\’s a simple light aircraft and the instructor has enough experience flying to know how to teach even though he’s only flown an hour on type. A system supported by pilots eager to keep the cost of flight training down, by flying the minimum chargeable hours, convinved they need little more than the POH to go by, text books only add to the cost of flying and take away money from important practical flying hours with unnecessary theory.

A bit dramatic? Consistently General Aviation accident rates remain the highest by a large margin. In the NTSB preliminary statistics comparing accident rate per flight hour, they are three times higher than commuter flights, the next highest category, and a staggering seventy times higher than the lowest rate, scheduled airlines

The last question, is it worth spending USD20 to find out, when most of the aeroplanes we write about cost about 100USD per hour?

If you are still sceptical about the cost, consider that the 20$ you spend might save you some flying and briefing time on your next renewal -

Support the ’save a plane’ cause - by starting with improving your own knowledge.

[b]Your donation is fully guaranteed! [/b]
Anyone not happy with a hard copy book purchase, that is if you really feel that it did not provide you with some valuable information and help improve your standard of flying, send me the copy in original condition for a full refund.

Any feedback on this marketing tactic welcomed: I\’ve posted it on my own blog for a laugh, but really it is quite serious.

10 great more great reasons to buy our Cessna Training Manual

1. You’ve probably wasted 20USD on many things inconceivably more useless during your aviation experience to date (a fluffy plane to hang on the rearview mirror perhaps?);
2. If it saves you from one costly mistake it’s worth it’s value;
3. It may save you from a mistake that is worth 100 times it’s value;
4. It may save you from a mistake that’s priceless;
5. Buy a copy and support the ‘Save a Plane’ Cause - your own that is;
6. Buy a copy to help save a life - also your own, and your passengers;
7. Buy a copy to save you money on training on ground school and flying hours;
8. Buy a copy to prove your smart-arse instructor doesn’t know everything and to impress friends at the aeroclub bar: (hint: maybe they’ll buy one too, you could even set up an Amazon storefront and get affiliate rewards? You might get enough revenue to pay back the cost of the book);
9. Buy a copy to impress the examiner on your next renewal;
10. And my favourite for the skeptics, and frugal - those who have paid or are paying for their own training and probably never break free of the mentality learnt in their “will fly for food” hard up days- It has a money back guarantee: if you don’t get any benefit from the book, mail it back in original condition for a full refund.

We never stop learning, and every resource we find will move us closer towards the overall aviation safety goals or zero accident rate. Join the growing number of readers who have benefited from Red Sky Ventures’ Cessna Training Manuals.