I agree.. subjective judgmental testing is not easy. Been there done that. They can talk up a storm, pass the test, jump in the plane and immediately do something stupid.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Noel <tednoel@cfl.rr.com>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 4:27 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: Safety
Jeff,
I think you missed my point. BTW, I agree with your comment on
testing. If you can't do the chore, you shouldn't get the score.
My basic point is that testing to ability to perform a task is
radically different from judgment as to when and if to do the task.
For example, low and slow is safe over the numbers, but rarely
anywhere else in a Lancair. Yet we get stall/spin accidents from low
and slow away from the numbers. That's a judgment error. Flying in
turbulence is OK when unavoidable, but willfully flying near
thunderstorms is not. And so on.
Testing for judgment is difficult at best, and many of our failures
are judgment, not technical skill. In Anesthesiology, we have three
years to watch a resident and evaluate judgment. But that process
failed in the example I listed. Others could be cited.
Technical ability is relatively simple to test. Lay out the task,
and see if it is properly performed. Judgment is not so easy to
evaluate.
Ted
On 1/30/2013 10:49 AM,
vtailjeff@aol.com wrote:
Ted,
I would disagree about training. The US has become a
society where everyone gets an A and passes. Our LOBO
training program does not reward the pilot who cannot meet
standards. I am sorry but if you cannot fly to PTS standards
you cannot get an IPC endorsement (instruement proficiency
check) from us.
I have seen more than one training document signed by the
instructor stating the pilot could not meet the instruement
standards and the pilot signature acknowledging that. If the
pilot is willing to put in the time we can usually get them
back up to speed but we will not compromise our standards.
Jeff --the hardass.