X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.100.31] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6037635 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:37:07 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.100.31; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-ma04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-ma04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.11]) by imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 95DD91C0001E6 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:36:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mne001a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mne001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.107.65]) by mtaomg-ma04.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 69279E000081 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:36:32 -0500 (EST) References: To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Safety In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CFCD51633DCFCD_1B80_194CB5_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 37309-STANDARD Received: from 12.110.229.82 by webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com (205.188.103.149) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:36:32 -0500 Message-Id: <8CFCD5162C92C3C-1B80-7D49F@webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [12.110.229.82] Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:36:32 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1359585392; bh=MMtvasxS8tvc4/7ikCraltohFaRCgnmcdqzqgFOQQhE=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=wdtLOly4BbHCJswkNcoGbEifWmnmkXqRcn81x8i6RTlY2jZhrtIhf2rensH7gvbTM KyCA4/AMRF0HWH11KWKCvSL6E6MqKSIs/nnhA0Jgtpe+KLSirkEudGJQfr1fNm0KJ5 UT6AFfWiEcTLypFGIVl7Vz0nP1XJYM+QolNvh0r4= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:472051968:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d290b5109a07004d3 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CFCD51633DCFCD_1B80_194CB5_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ted, 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.=20 Best regards, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Ted Noel To: lml Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 4:27 pm Subject: [LML] Re: Safety Jeff, =20 I think you missed my point. BTW, I agree with your comment on testi= ng. If you can't do the chore, you shouldn't get the score. =20 My basic point is that testing to ability to perform a task is radic= ally different from judgment as to when and if to do the task. For examp= le, 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 th= e numbers. That's a judgment error. Flying in turbulence is OK when unav= oidable, but willfully flying near thunderstorms is not. And so on.=20 =20 Testing for judgment is difficult at best, and many of our failures = are judgment, not technical skill. In Anesthesiology, we have three year= s to watch a resident and evaluate judgment. But that process failed in = the example I listed. Others could be cited. =20 Technical ability is relatively simple to test. Lay out the task, an= d see if it is properly performed. Judgment is not so easy to evaluate. =20 Ted =20 On 1/30/2013 10:49 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: =20 =20 Ted, =20 =20 =20 I would disagree about training. The US has become a society where= everyone gets an A and passes. Our LOBO training program does no= t reward the pilot who cannot meet standards. I am sorry but if yo= u cannot fly to PTS standards you cannot get an IPC endorsement (i= nstruement proficiency check) from us.=20 =20 =20 =20 I have seen more than one training document signed by the instruct= or stating the pilot could not meet the instruement standards and = the pilot signature acknowledging that. If the pilot is willing t= o put in the time we can usually get them back up to speed but we = will not compromise our standards. =20 =20 =20 Jeff --the hardass. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ----------MB_8CFCD51633DCFCD_1B80_194CB5_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Ted,
 
I agree.. subjective judgmental testing is not easy. Been there d= one that. They can talk up a storm, pass the test, jump in the plane and im= mediately do something stupid.
 
Best regards,
 
Jeff
-----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

=20 =20 =20 =20 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:
=20
Ted,
=20
 
=20
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.
=20
 
=20
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 th= e pilot is willing to put in the time we can usually get them back up to speed but we will not compromise our standards.
=20
 
=20
Jeff --the hardass.
=20
=20
----------MB_8CFCD51633DCFCD_1B80_194CB5_webmailstg-d02.sysops.aol.com--