|
|
Jack,
Again we're just talking to what w eknow, and ignoring the problem of design improvement for safety.
Serious lapses in checkrides don't kill people; and the reguilations of the BFR program were not justified by safety results ... accident records.
If you just accept the viewpoint of those with vested interests, how can you get a clear picture olf the truth.
Would youo even know what statistics to seek, and how to interpret them? You're just starting with unnecessary regulations after-the-fact.
Terrence
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Hmmm
Posted for J H Webb <airmale@alltel.net>:
Right on Jeff!!! I see serious lapses on checkrides as well and it is not
the airplane's fault and I always make an effort to make them relax to try to
eliminate checkitis.
Jack Webb
VTAILJEFF@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/14/2006 12:31:36 PM Central Standard Time, marv@lancaironline.net writes:
I think pilots are good enough already.
Terrence,
I give a lot of FAA checkrides. Last Friday a private pilot applicant I gave a checkride to got lost within 10 miles of his home field, right in the middle of the VFR practice area. He did not know how to dead reckon nor navigate via pilotage. His troubles began when I turned off the GPS. His young 300 hour CFI signed him off as proficient to pass the checkride-- but did not know how to teach and test navigation skills. The week before, a commercial pilot applicant was going to fly into convective activity because he thought I wanted him to maintain a centered CDI while on the cross country portion. When I pulled the engine back to simulate an engine out he immediately extended the landing gear. I have had multi engine applicants shut down the wrong engine and also attempt gear up landings. Good enough? I don't think so. The GA community can do better.
Jeff
--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/
|
|