New Pre-Solo Human performance Exam

[motzartmerv]

Bernie.. hell yes you made the right descision..

 

An acft with U/S flaps is U/S..

 

Look guys, the text book is about 1/2 an inch thick.. The test is child's play.. Read the book, you WILL learn something.. even you oldschool guys that learned in the wright flyer days.. Even if it only makes you 1% safer, then its worth the time.. Im amazed at the oposition expressed by members, not just of this site but RAA members in general.. yea sure, it is a bit of overkill for our type of flying, but as the line between GA and RAA is getting finer and finer, i reckon education is going to make all the difference.. we all talk about CTA, aero's and higher weight limits, but it seems most people are against any more testing.. why??....its for YOUR own benifit..i reckon the testing standards for RAA are to slack, thats my opinion, and im sticking with it..( searching through cupboard for flamesuit)... so stop whining, get on with it..

 

 

[Guest Rocko]

I'd imagine the person who probably most needs the HF training would be the pilot who continued with a defective aircraft.

 

 

[facthunter]

Discussion.

 

ALL discussion on this is a good thing. I don't want to be put in the role of an apologist for what we have, but I'd like to pose a few thoughts.

 

We (RAAus types) get all thing when other sections of Aviation allegedly say we are "unworthy" to be recognised as "REAL" pilots. IF we were the only major section of aviation which rejected the need for Human Factors training, would that not be evidence of the need to get "real"? NOT DOING THIS TRAINING IS NOT AN OPTION! IT IS a world-wide occurrence and the need for it is continuously being demonstrated.

 

Exemptions for the older experienced persons. NO!. How would you decide who has reached this magic state. There is no general evidence that high levels of experience reduce the need for this training.

 

I have seen instances of the other effect, where crusty old cockpit tyrants, showed up very poorly compared with some of the newer pilots, as the particular persons, in these instances, were found to be very SET in their ways, usually solving the problem quickly but overlooking some critical vital element crucial to the outcome. They also tended to NOT use all the available help (Resources). NOTE This is an extremely condensed overview, but I hope you get the idea, ( and I am not directing it at anyone here, I might add).

 

I think we have achieved considerable modification of the original program and this is most welcome. No doubt it will continue to be modified in the future. If you think that changes need to be made, contribute your suggestions as time goes on. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

I am not against the examination, what does upset me is that I have no knowledge of what the questionong will be. I have read a lot about aviation over the last 40 or so years I have held a licence, including about hypoxia, meteorology, decision making and a host of other subjects, required reading has been accident reports from all over the world. What I want is to see either what is taught or what the questions are.

 

When I started flying it was possible to see past exams for reference and it was also possible to see exactly what was required. With this subject it appears to me that a money making opening has been percieved and we are all expected to pay up.

 

 

[farri]

..I reckon the testing standards for RAA are to slack, thats my opinion, and im sticking with it..(

Motzartmerv,

 

Please tell us all,how the testing standard can be improved , so that the stupid decisions made by some pilots, will stop occuring.

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

 

 

[facthunter]

Money-making.

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think the money aspect of this is as you might fear. I think RAAus has done a good job to get us where I think we are. Ian, I agree that working over past papers gives a good result where there is a consistent history of content over many years to refer to. I doubt whether we are in this situation here, as it's all pretty new.( To us, anyhow).

 

The original programme was quite on-going and involved, and did have a significant cost structure, and I believe would have resulted in some justified resentment. I reckon this subject should utilize an interactive on-line response test where you would persist with the answers till you got the appropriate response(s), being referred to reference material depending on the answers you have given. Ideally this would be covered in the training syllabus, originally, and developed into a refresher type format that you work through as newer material becomes available. I don't think we are there yet. Nev..

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Farri, the stupid descisions made by pilots is not what i was referring to.. what i was referring to is the testing involved in the RAA cert..

 

The stupid descisions will go on regardless, and not only by RAA pilots, but all pilots, we are all after all HUMAN..

 

I reckon, and this is my own personal opinion, that the testing for the RAA cert should be beefed up a bit. its just a bit weak..

 

I am no old hand, but in the last few years ive seen and heard some bizzare things in the ranks of saposedly experianced RAA cert holders.. Just one example is a cfi going for a renewal who had NEVER done a weight and balance in the jabiru he teaches in...never ... he didn't know how much fuel he could carry, he'd NEVER done it with students, just fill her up and off they go..Thats just one example, and it isn't second hand, i was standing next to the testing officer when he asked him how much fuel they could take...i was shocked that this CFI didnt know the specific gravity of fuel..

 

5 aeroplanes arriving at an airfield , in company, with not one of them having a clue how to get into the cct safely.. calling final for a runway when they were actually on the crosstrip..

 

i could go on...but i won't, i dont want to be seen as bashing the RAA, im not, id just like to see a higher standard of testing done before unleashing pilots into the yonder. And that goes for myself aswell, when i first got my cert, i felt very underprepared.. flying around thinking "you know, im not really sure i know exactly what im doing here"...

 

To answer your question..what would i like to see changed..well, id like a higher standard of testing for the navigation endo.. im not talking about the flying part, im talking about the theory, specifically meteorology, performance charts and things..

 

anyway..

 

cheers

 

 

[farri]

NOT DOING THIS TRAINING IS NOT AN OPTION! IT IS a world-wide occurrence and the need for it is continuously being demonstrated.Exemptions for the older experienced persons. NO!. How would you decide who has reached this magic state. There is no general evidence that high levels of experience reduce the need for this training. Nev

There you go Nev,

 

If we keep asking the questions, we finaly get some answers. :thumb_up:

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

 

 

[pudestcon]

Online response test

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think the money aspect of this is as you might fear. I think RAAus has done a good job to get us where I think we are. Ian, I agree that working over past papers gives a good result where there is a consistent history of content over many years to refer to. I doubt whether we are in this situation here, as it's all pretty new.( To us, anyhow).The original programme was quite on-going and involved, and did have a significant cost structure, and I believe would have resulted in some justified resentment. I reckon this subject should utilize an interactive on-line response test where you would persist with the answers till you got the appropriate response(s), being referred to reference material depending on the answers you have given. Ideally this would be covered in the training syllabus, originally, and developed into a refresher type format that you work through as newer material becomes available. I don't think we are there yet. Nev..

I'm with you on this Nev,

 

I reckon it should be set up similar to the "Bluecard" training for construction site safety awareness on the 'bluedog' web site. Check it out and see what you think of the idea.

 

regards,

 

Pud

 

 

[farri]

Farri, the stupid descisions made by pilots is not what i was referring to.. what i was referring to is the testing involved in the RAA cert.. cheers

Motza,

 

The RAA training syllabus covers all the areas you have mentioned and as you know, it is the instructors responsibility to bring the student up to the standard required.

 

Exams must be passed and the CFI must then be satisfied that the standard has been met before issuing the certificate application, which has to be approved by the operations manager, before a certificate is issued.

 

When you say, "The testing standards for the RAA certificate are too slack",who or what,then, are you refering to,is it the CFI`s who do the testing or the standard itself.

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Oh no..i can feel one of those days coming on..

 

 

 

I am well aware that these things are covered.. like i said, i just think its not covered to a good enough standard..The syesyem you speak of does and has let guys through the cracks ie, my last post.. me wonders how many guys this CFI has trained..

 

 

 

I see it like this.. The AUF wrote a syllabus for its pilots years ago.. thats fine, and at the time the average trainers were things like thrusters and drifta's.. But the years have brought rapid development in acft designs and ya average ultralight now hooks along at a good rate of knots, and , have become more complex ..more akin to GA acft.. so i reckon the testing should be escilated with the machines we fly..

 

 

 

cheers

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

ya average ultralight ...have become more complex

More complex ?

 

..more akin to GA acft

A backwards step ?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

lol...perhaps.;)

 

 

[Bigglesworth]

You may remember that earlier I was all for the idea of a HF exam. Now that I have passed it a few weeks ago (with no study) I am opposed to what they have. I can't give away the questions, but 'Concept Models'? For Recreational pilots? I mean, sure teach them what can go wrong, but the very title is enough to make people ignore it as officialize.

 

And instead of asking "what should we do now" it asks "what category of mistake was this?".......

 

Is that going to help Fred the pilot?

 

It is a good idea to learn all the stuff about HF, and I'm glad I did when I did my PPL theory. But the exam itself is easier to pass from book knowledge than by real knowledge.

 

I agree entirely with Motzart....

 

We now do about the same as a GA private pilot, shouldn't we have to know just as much?

 

When I did a review with a GA instructor (prior to test-flying my plane) he said I was a very different pilot from most Recreational pilots he had flown with, and I think it was to do with the fact that I have covered the GA theory.

 

If you want to be ignorant, then you will have to be controlled by those who know what's good for you,

 

If you want freedom (Gimme a "Hell Yeah") you have to know what you are doing, and know it well.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Speculation

 

Yeah, back in the good old days seems to me that it was the ...err, 'GA' trained pilots who were (fataly) pranging the ultralights. Self tought ultralight pilots like myself seemed to survive for some reason ...perhaps the problem is with the method of instruction, Not the pilots ???

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Motz and others in this thread have placed a great deal of emphasis on "exams" and "testing" when neither thing has much relevance.

 

What's missing - in amongst all this stuff about freedoms, and "us old pilots" and the like - is a culture of continuous learning. Without that we are all at risk. You are never too old, never too experienced and never know enough to avoid being the one that gets killed.

 

If you want to stay alive, if you want to come out on top when the excretia hits the rotating bit, then you had better be chronically uneasy and always trying to learn more about the things that matter.

 

If the people that Merv talks about didn't know stuff then it's the lack of a learning culture not the testing standards that are at fault. You can't test everything.

 

Yes the GPPP syllabus and exam are some way from being where we need them to be. However they are doing a job of making people think. My daughter said to me as she studied the GPPP book "boy this is depressing - death and destruction everywhere!". But it made her think.

 

Bigglesworth misses the point by saying that he could pass without study. It's not the passing that's important - it's the study!

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[facthunter]

Could be.

 

Historically, GA has not utilised , nor promoted , spinnable , or, tailwheel aircraft since the introduction of the "big 3", Cessna, Piper. Beechcraft "tin ,tricycle undercarriage" type trainers . (Well they weren't specifically trainers. They were just aeroplanes used as trainers) in the mid-60's.

 

The concept was, don't train for spin recovery, just don't get into a spin.

 

No recovery from really unusual attitudes

 

No emergency manoever training.

 

No "under the hood" unusual attitude experience.

 

You could fly the whole course without a seatbelt fastened. (Unless you got into turbulence, but I am trying to illustrate a point here),

 

HPD, would it be any wonder that the products of this system couldn't fly Skyfox's?

 

I don't think that the evidence is there ,that the accident rate during that period (Pre-1986) where you HAD to train yourself is THAT good at all. the statistics that I have seen indicate otherwise. The need for "courage " to take the first big step (without an instructor) may have deterred some of the less capable and less competent, from doing it.

 

Today, a much broader and varied as to background and skills, cross-section of the populace are going to end up in our ranks and the system has to adapt to them, and stay ( or become), SAFE. We all know what the result of it becoming quite unsafe would be.. Nev.

 

Mike ,you got that in as I have been typing this, RIGHT ON the POINT!.. Nev

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Mike, i couldn't agree more.. the culture of continuous learning is sort of what i am trying to get at.. I still think that the testing needs to improve, because like you say, its the study thats important as we can't test for evrything. But if a pilot can study a reduced version of the BAK which is a reduced version of the ppl, and still pass the exam (and then never have to sit another exam ever again) how is this culture being implanted in the pilot from the beggining.

 

I recently took over the training at a club. The Standard of 'study' was quite abismal.. All the pilots were studying a reduced bak and thats it.. Basically all the exam questions answerd in the text , and thats all..

 

I have since thrown the text books out and insisted that all new pilots get the student kit, with the 'real' BAK, flying training manuel and radio book.. Once they pass there cert i recomend they study the ppl text's.. and most have been doing that.. some offer resistance saying things like "why do i need to keep studying, ipassed my test's?"...and its exactly this sort of response im ranting on about..

 

Nev, as usual i think you are spot on..:thumb_up:

 

 

[Thx1137]

As a new pilot with only 15.2 hours myself I must admit that I cannot see why I need to study less than a GA pilot in most areas because the aircraft I fly is simply a 2 seater version of a GA machine. I can do everything they can do with the limiting factor being rules and regulations.

 

Maybe I don't need too much controlled airspace training except to know how to avoid it as I am not allowed in it but just about everything else is just like the larger versions.

 

Personally, I initially purchased the same training books as used for the PPL/CPL because it seemed obvious to me that I ether learn to fly 'like a real pilot' or I should stay on the ground. I dunno if this should apply to all classes of ultralight but certainly for the standard 3 axis machines I think it should.

 

One difference between us an the GA world is to do with how we are licensed. A person going for the PPL either passes or fails the whole lot but we have a set of core training and endorsements so we can train in increments. I do think each level of training should be just as strick as GA but it means we can expand our horizons in stages, that is one of the things I liked about the RA-Aus system.

 

Besides the safety aspects, if we don't want the rest of the flying world to view us as substandard pilots in 'toy' aeroplanes than we should be just as rigorous in our training as everyone else. I have heard a few times that this is a common view by some.

 

Steven.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

I don't think that the evidence is there ,that the accident rate during that period (Pre-1986) where you HAD to train yourself is THAT good at all. the statistics that I have seen indicate otherwise.

Unforetunatly, from what I recall, a lot of the pre 86 'statistics' (and later) tended to have a GA lic of some discription.

 

IMHO - you can jam a space shuttle worth of book lernin into the head of a student, and at the end of the day, it is the hand on stick lernin that is the most critical to the newby RAAus pilot.

 

All that said, I tend to agree with the intent of this thread.

 

...the culture of continuous learning...

Now that, to me, is the secret to it all :thumb_up:

 

 

[farri]

The AUF wrote a syllabus for its pilots years ago.. thats fine, and at the time the average trainers were things like thrusters and drifta's.. But the years have brought rapid development in acft designs and ya average ultralight now hooks along at a good rate of knots, and , have become more complex ..more akin to GA acft.. so i reckon the testing should be escilated with the machines we fly..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cheers

So go to GA,It was covered long ago.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Bigglesworth]

Bigglesworth misses the point by saying that he could pass without study. It's not the passing that's important - it's the study!

I do not miss the point. I COULD pass without study. So what was the point of the exam?I am fully in agreeance with the what everyone is saying: continuous learning is what we need.

 

BUT, not everyone can do it/enjoys it.

 

And in that is the distinction between professionals and weekenders. Some of us want to be able to fly in minimal conditions, and know our limits exactly,

 

but a lot of pilots only want to fly on a CAVOK calm day. And as such can get away with a lot less knowledge.

 

Notwithstanding that, the exam is a piece of "rubbish" in my opinion. It doesn't help when it can be passed with no study by someone with a knack of passing exams, but an experienced pilot (lots better/safer pilot than me) might have difficulty just because of the ridiculous Titles Of Conditions, and irrelevent(IMO) questions.

 

Moderated under rule 2.9 - Admin

 

 

[Thx1137]

Good post Mike, Nev. Things change so we have to change with it.

 

A lot of P platers (and non-P platers for that matter) on the road die because they 'think' they know their limits. Also, a pilot that is only used to CAVOK, what happens to him when the wind picks up?

 

It is pretty simple really. In anything we do that requires licensing we study the necessary material to get specific privileges. If we don't want to study it then we don't have to, it is a choice. As far as "not everyone can do it", why not? more like not everyone can be bothered, thats different. "Not everyone enjoys it". Who the heck ENJOYS tests and studying!? :-)

 

"I know my limits so trust me" and is something that almost everyone thinks otherwise they wouldn't be doing it though it is not exactly a good indication of skill. Maybe they do know their limits but how can anyone else know that? Clearly a lot of people are wrong. How do we know who is wrong before they kill themselves or others... Having said that, I do agree that if we are going to be tested then the test should be decent. I personally cannot stand learning stuff for nothing.

 

As to the quality of the exam. Buggered if I know, I have read the material but haven't done the test yet. But if it is bad then with a few revisions and commuity input there is no reason they can't come up to scratch.

 

Paper tests are always going to be crappy. The best tests for someone like myself is to be given demo situations and then experiencing it but I would hate to know the cost of that kind of training!

 

In the end it seems most of us agree "continuous learning" is necessary but it seems there is some departure on whether there is any need to actually demonstrate it OR that because a written test isn't currently 'good enough' then there is no point.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Also, a pilot that is only used to CAVOK, what happens to him when the wind picks up?

Just being a :devil: advocate here - what happens if the cloud 'picks up' ? Should all RAAus pilots have an IFR rating ?

 

This is the thing - how much does ya need ta know ?

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I'm not complaining about having to do it. I had to do 7 exams for my work recently to renew a certification that had no upgrade path. They were all hard and cost from $160 - $400 each. Just to stay employed!