How to fly with another pilot?

[Guest]

11 hours ago, PTK said:

You are correct, however, VFR into IMC would probably have a more benign outcome if the pilot is IR. We need to change the "mindset." What better way than revamping pilot training! Graduate all pilots with an IR. I'd go a step further. Have a mandatory comprehensive and all encompassing BFR that includes an IPC, with an FAA designated examiner. This in addition to the currency requirements.

Under this program there would be fewer pilots, cost would be prohibitive.  Many pilots have little to no interest in instrument flying.  What good is an IR to an aerobatic pilot as an example.  On our field we have an early 80's aerobatic pilot who can fly straight, hold altitude etc. all without an IR.

In my case I flew 25 years before deciding to do my night rating, I really have no interest in night flight, and IR even less so.

Clarence

[gsxrpilot]

The notion that all pilots should be IR is beyond ridiculous. If the goal is to keep pilots from dying, why don't we just do away with GA. Not all pilots fly Mooney's or other airplanes designed for traveling. If I'm just a fair weather pilot flying an open cockpit low and slow or even super high powered Extra or warbird, why should I worry about an IR? I might never even fly a plane with IFR instruments.  On the other hand, if I fly because I like crossing the country and going distances in a purpose built IFR machine such as my Mooney, I have the option to get the additional training and rating.

Do we really need more barriers to entry for pilots?

[gsengle]

What may save pilots is cheaper better avionics, with cheaper better autopilots, installed in more and more planes, that have that big red straight and level button. Envelope protection. TAWS, etc

ps can't wait for a true self driving car....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Marauder]

17 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said: You are welcome to your desire to create more rules and regulations for other people to follow and pay for. I don't see how forcing the extra hours and expense will help the poor decision-making that generally leads to VFR into IMC accidents, except perhaps by acting a disincentive for people to learn to or continue to fly at all, so I'll pass on that one.

 

8 minutes ago, Hank said: This will significantly reduce accident numbers by significantly reducing pilot numbers. But I don't think it will reduce the accident rate (# accidents / # hours flown).

Nall Report data contradicts your thoughts about IFR pilots doing VFR into IMC. Nice speculation, next time bring data. 

Why don't we try it and if it doesn't work change it! A 10 year "pilot" program. Nothing wrong with trying a new "approach!" (Puns intended!) Build some data and see where we go from there! Change is good!

Hank, what you said is interesting. Reduce accident numbers by reducing pilot numbers. Is that a bad thing necessarily? Or maybe it will not reduce pilot numbers. Why do you think it will? Folks who think it's a burden maybe should not be flying! I don't know, I'm thinking as I'm typing!

Peter -- that is a great idea! I'm a strong believer in a more robust training regiment.

Why don't you start this for your personal flying and report back to us in 10 years. We will still be here.

All joking aside -- when the FAA changed the 666 rule to eliminate the 6 hours of flight time for IFR currency, I was absolutely happy with that decision. Why? Because all anyone did was flying around under the hood for the hours needed to make up what you didn't get in actual. It is the same when pilots tell you they have a 1000 hours of flight experience. When you dig into it, they have 1 hour experience flying to their favorite restaurant 1000 times.

More training isn't the answer, better quality training specific for the pilot's weaknesses is what is needed. I do like the focus the FAA is placing on decision making for new PPLs. The majority of accidents are due to poor decision making whether on the ground or in the air.

[Yetti]

Wouldn't half the GA fleet not be able to fly IR... anyways.  Why not teach more about weather or teach how ATC and a pilot working together can get you down.  There was a fully IR capable charter pilot that took off from the field I was training at.  He decided to fly through a front instead of around the tail and augured in.   Flying around the tail end would have added 30 minutes to the flight. It created my rule number 3.  Never fly through a front line.

[Yetti]

Also most if all accidents can be avoided with a Push down on the yoke approach.   I wish I had been yelled at and thunked on the back of the head several times going through training when put in situations that the response should be push down on the yoke

[PTK]

28 minutes ago, Marauder said:

...better quality training specific for the pilot's weaknesses is what is needed. I do like the focus the FAA is placing on decision making for new PPLs. The majority of accidents are due to poor decision making whether on the ground or in the air.

Agreed. Some one earlier said something about "mindset." The current mindset is "I don't need that rating because I plan to only fly on sunny days." Wouldn't it be beneficial if we trained all pilots with one mindset? Let them fly VFR only if they so desire but force them to have an IPC and stay current? 

[Marauder]

28 minutes ago, Marauder said: ...better quality training specific for the pilot's weaknesses is what is needed. I do like the focus the FAA is placing on decision making for new PPLs. The majority of accidents are due to poor decision making whether on the ground or in the air.

Agreed. Some one earlier said something about "mindset." The current mindset is "I don't need that rating because I plan to only fly on sunny days." Wouldn't it be beneficial if we trained all pilots with one mindset? Let them fly VFR only if they so desire but force them to have an IPC and stay current? 

OMG Peter! We agreed on something! Run up the banners, there is something to celebrate in MooneySpace land.

[Chocks]

Side topic:

There's a reason why they made the "Sport Pilot" class, and it's not because there were too many pilots chomping at the bit to spend more on a regulated IR.

Having said that, adding more base requirements might have the desired effect, but would limit the field substantially. You need Busch league, Minors and Majors to be a force. General Aviation is dying from malnutrition not safety. Malnutrition from government oversight, and regulation unlike any other area of transportation. I'll cease that soapbox though.

Main topic:

As far as flying with other pilots, I have flown with many - in my 4 short years as a pilot - and find all to be very different, but no less capable or safe than the next, just different.

I find some enjoy flying with others and appreciate the copilot help. These PIC's usually feel you out for a bit and maybe give you little tasks to do throughout the flight and if you do them to their liking they ask you again next time.

Some pilots are very finicky about what you do from the right seat. They act as though the copilot is a basic passenger.

Then there is my favorite PIC to fly with; this left seater is excited to have a copilot for the trip. They ask what you'd like to handle during the flight and have no problem taking care of that overtightened shoe by simply saying the magic words "Your Airplane!" and sliding their seat back.

So while I understand flows, muscle memory, and all the other techniques we do to be more proficient, I think we can all do well by embracing change and off the cuff flying from time to time. Otherwise, whats the point of robot flying when something unexpected happens. We NEED to have variation, different technique, irregular flow, and for the love of god, shared cockpit management... We're both pilots! We know how to run those 1960's radios too, take it easy.

If I can hear your rectum squeak every time I touch your rudder pedals adjusting myself in the seat, you need to stop flying with other people.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cnoe]

28 minutes ago, Marauder said: ...better quality training specific for the pilot's weaknesses is what is needed. I do like the focus the FAA is placing on decision making for new PPLs. The majority of accidents are due to poor decision making whether on the ground or in the air.

Agreed. Some one earlier said something about "mindset." The current mindset is "I don't need that rating because I plan to only fly on sunny days." Wouldn't it be beneficial if we trained all pilots with one mindset? Let them fly VFR only if they so desire but force them to have an IPC and stay current? 

It would be much simpler to mandate BRS for all GA and drill us with the Cirrus mantra "Pull early, pull often".

Gotta love a good devil's advocate. Thanks Peter!

[Bob - S50]

While training and improved avionics will help, the only way to significantly improve safety among GA pilots is to improve judgement.  It is hard to impossible to teach judgement.  There are times when a pilot through no fault of their own has no good options, but to quote Ron White, "you can't fix stupid".

By stupid I mean stuff like taking off cross country without checking the weather, flying VFR in weather that is marginal at best, not checking how much fuel is on board before taking off, taking off without enough fuel, not monitoring fuel levels, not checking weight and balance, showing off to someone on the ground.  But it happens every day.

Even with that said, we all make mistakes, some big some small.  In over 40 years of flying I have never made a perfect error free flight.  Probably never will, but I keep trying.

[PTK]

2 hours ago, Marauder said:

OMG Peter! We agreed on something! Run up the banners, there is something to celebrate in MooneySpace land.

You see Chris, that was...

!!

[yvesg]

3 hours ago, Marauder said:

Peter -- that is a great idea! I'm a strong believer in a more robust training regiment.

Why don't you start this for your personal flying and report back to us in 10 years. We will still be here.

All joking aside -- when the FAA changed the 666 rule to eliminate the 6 hours of flight time for IFR currency, I was absolutely happy with that decision. Why? Because all anyone did was flying around under the hood for the hours needed to make up what you didn't get in actual. It is the same when pilots tell you they have a 1000 hours of flight experience. When you dig into it, they have 1 hour experience flying to their favorite restaurant 1000 times.

More training isn't the answer, better quality training specific for the pilot's weaknesses is what is needed. I do like the focus the FAA is placing on decision making for new PPLs. The majority of accidents are due to poor decision making whether on the ground or in the air.

Marauder, would you have the date when the 666 rule was changed to 66 in USA? I know it was several years ago but l want to see the context and presented arguments at that time. We are still under 666 in Canada and wish it would change to match what you guys have.

Yves

 

[carusoam]

Yves

The revision must be about five years old...

An update came through in 2012... With clarification on the use of sims...

see if this helps...

http://www.nafinet.org/news.aspx?id=557

Best regards,

-a-

[PaulM]

The 6 hour rule was changed around 1997

http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/1998/February/199802_Is_Currency_Any_Easier.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=0iNHz-kt9n0C&lpg=PA25&ots=B9ndBm3AF9&dq=flying%20magazine%20IFR%20currency%201997&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q=flying%20magazine%20IFR%20currency%201997&f=false

I flew many a flight as safety pilot in the right seat with my father to keep up with this rule.

[midlifeflyer]

46 minutes ago, PTK said:

 

Why don't we try it and if it doesn't work change it! A 10 year "pilot" program. Nothing wrong with trying a new "approach!" (Puns intended!) Build some data and see where we go from there! Change is good!

Interested in a career in politics, are we?  

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, PaulM said:

The 6 hour rule was changed around 1997

Yep. The Final Rule with the change was published in April 1997, effective in August that year. It was part of a wholesale revision to Parts 61 and 141.

If one wants to read the official discussion and commentary from the Federal Register, it is available at  http://1.usa.gov/22Ls7Ra 

 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Hyett6420 said:

Totally disagree, I would say under 100 hours, but then I did, but in the uk we have a thing called the IMC rating which is 15 hours of instrument instruction including approaches.  Best rating ever and every country should have it.

So how is the IMC Rating different from the Instrument Rating? Besides less than half of the training. 

[Steve Dietrich]

I found giving the right seater  navcom2 to play with worked well.  If they were not a Mooney pilot I'll have them take the controls for a period . 

I have a family member who is an extraordinarily skilled and experienced pilot.  The first times flying with him I felt more self induced pressure than any checkride.  But , his comments were limited to identifying traffic and handing me the divert approach plate before I asked. 

I think there's a huge benefit in flying with someone who is a great pilot and asking them for a debrief after the flight.  For other pilots whom I flew with I would generally ask them to mention anything they saw which was dangerous or damaging to the airplane in real time and hold the balance to share over a beer. 

It also  helped me when I started taking half a minute after shutdown and wrote down what I wished I had done better on the following page of the steno pad I used for clearances frequencies, fuel  .  It was there to review before the next flight.

I also have a friend who has flown for years as cabin crew on high level charter operations.  I'm stunned at some of the stories I hear from her. 

I don't know what the number is for GA but the pilot who did CHILDREN OF THE MAGENTA LINE also did a class on upset training for his airline pilots. I was stunned at his comment that 62% of their hull losses resulted from loss of control accidents . 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by Steve Dietrich

[midlifeflyer]

3 hours ago, Hank said:

So how is the IMC Rating different from the Instrument Rating? Besides less than half of the training. 

It's a limited instrument rating. 

Higher minimums for approaches for example. It always struck me as a recognition that, in a country with a lot of cloudy days, true VFR flight can be limiting, so an instrument rating limited to very benign IFR weather with high ceilings might make sense.