Eric Greenwell
September 2nd 03, 04:49 AM
In article >, crwdog69
@hotmail.com says...
>> Sean Tucker and Wayne Handley might disagree. Neither have
>> "the proper ratings." The insurance companies and the FAA cares
>> not even a whit.
>
>Excellent point. These people actually charge money for instruction.
>They consider the flight instructor certificate basically irrelevant.
>As the holder of a flight instructor certificate, I must agree.
These are not the kind of people I am concerned about. I don't know
them, but apparently, they are experienced instructors and the people
getting the instruction know that, know that they are students (and not
passengers) and have knowingly accepted the extra risk that is involved.
Obviously, Sean and Wayne have the Commercial rating and the experience
and skills it takes to get it.
The people I am concerned about, and that Michael talked about in the
post that started this, are NOT commercial pilots, are NOT experienced
instructors, and are taking people up as passengers with NO ground
school or other training.
>
>> Some people can teach. Some cannot. Some can fly safely. Some
>> cannot. A piece of paper changes this little. The astonishing
>> variance in standards enforced by different paid CFIs and DPEs will
>> make this true for the forseeable future.
>
>The reality is that it's even worse. Training to be a flight
>instructor really doesn't include any training in how to recover from
>student errors in critical flight situations. It probably should, but
>it's not in the PTS, so for the forseeable future it's not going to.
I agree, and even though it doesn't, someone training to be a CFIG is
likely to learn about this from the CFIG giving him instruction. Most
CFIGs have been "surprised" by a student occasionally, and are eager to
pass this on.
snip
>> PIC is PIC.
>
>Exactly right. Regardless of who is manipulating the controls, the
>PIC retains absolute authority and total responsibility for the
>flight. Letting someone else manipulate the controls doesn't change
>that one bit.
It doesn't change the legal situation, of course, but it can drastically
alter the outcome of the flight. That is why I suggested everyone that
thinks letting people without any training in instruction, and limited
flight experience (less than a Commercial rating, say), teach
"passengers" how to do landings and aerotows is a good idea, should read
the "Accident/incident summaries" section in a few Sailplane & Gliding
magazines.
--
==> change the decimal.point in my address to . to reply directly
--
==> change the decimal.point in my address to . to reply directly
@hotmail.com says...
>> Sean Tucker and Wayne Handley might disagree. Neither have
>> "the proper ratings." The insurance companies and the FAA cares
>> not even a whit.
>
>Excellent point. These people actually charge money for instruction.
>They consider the flight instructor certificate basically irrelevant.
>As the holder of a flight instructor certificate, I must agree.
These are not the kind of people I am concerned about. I don't know
them, but apparently, they are experienced instructors and the people
getting the instruction know that, know that they are students (and not
passengers) and have knowingly accepted the extra risk that is involved.
Obviously, Sean and Wayne have the Commercial rating and the experience
and skills it takes to get it.
The people I am concerned about, and that Michael talked about in the
post that started this, are NOT commercial pilots, are NOT experienced
instructors, and are taking people up as passengers with NO ground
school or other training.
>
>> Some people can teach. Some cannot. Some can fly safely. Some
>> cannot. A piece of paper changes this little. The astonishing
>> variance in standards enforced by different paid CFIs and DPEs will
>> make this true for the forseeable future.
>
>The reality is that it's even worse. Training to be a flight
>instructor really doesn't include any training in how to recover from
>student errors in critical flight situations. It probably should, but
>it's not in the PTS, so for the forseeable future it's not going to.
I agree, and even though it doesn't, someone training to be a CFIG is
likely to learn about this from the CFIG giving him instruction. Most
CFIGs have been "surprised" by a student occasionally, and are eager to
pass this on.
snip
>> PIC is PIC.
>
>Exactly right. Regardless of who is manipulating the controls, the
>PIC retains absolute authority and total responsibility for the
>flight. Letting someone else manipulate the controls doesn't change
>that one bit.
It doesn't change the legal situation, of course, but it can drastically
alter the outcome of the flight. That is why I suggested everyone that
thinks letting people without any training in instruction, and limited
flight experience (less than a Commercial rating, say), teach
"passengers" how to do landings and aerotows is a good idea, should read
the "Accident/incident summaries" section in a few Sailplane & Gliding
magazines.
--
==> change the decimal.point in my address to . to reply directly
--
==> change the decimal.point in my address to . to reply directly