X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:24:17 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: <2thman1@gmail.com> Received: from mail-da0-f54.google.com ([209.85.210.54] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6037646 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:44:06 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.210.54; envelope-from=2thman1@gmail.com Received: by mail-da0-f54.google.com with SMTP id n2so975234dad.13 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:43:30 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.82.198 with SMTP id k6mr14903138pay.53.1359585810391; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:43:30 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: <2thman1@gmail.com> Received: from [10.214.88.52] (mobile-166-147-083-149.mycingular.net. [166.147.83.149]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ou8sm2800903pbb.39.2013.01.30.14.43.28 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:43:29 -0800 (PST) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-6403C7F9-2CC4-4E50-8F17-62DE2447C56C X-Original-Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10B141) From: John Barrett <2thman1@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Safety X-Original-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:43:25 -0800 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List --Apple-Mail-6403C7F9-2CC4-4E50-8F17-62DE2447C56C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable True comments about judgment vs technical skill. However, judgement improve= s with experience and can be modified positively with appropriate training. = Sometimes even social interaction can have the same effect. LOBO seeks to a= ccomplish this and I think it is working. John Barrett.=20 Sent from my iPad On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Ted Noel wrote: > Jeff, >=20 > 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. >=20 > My basic point is that testing to ability to perform a task is radically d= ifferent from judgment as to when and if to do the task. For example, low an= d slow is safe over the numbers, but rarely anywhere else in a Lancair. Yet w= e 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 f= lying near thunderstorms is not. And so on.=20 >=20 > Testing for judgment is difficult at best, and many of our failures are ju= dgment, not technical skill. In Anesthesiology, we have three years to watch= a resident and evaluate judgment. But that process failed in the example I l= isted. Others could be cited. >=20 > Technical ability is relatively simple to test. Lay out the task, and see i= f 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 >> Ted, >> =20 >> I would disagree about training. The US has become a society where everyo= ne gets an A and passes. Our LOBO training program does not reward the pilo= t who cannot meet standards. I am sorry but if you cannot fly to PTS standar= ds you cannot get an IPC endorsement (instruement proficiency check) from us= . >> =20 >> I have seen more than one training document signed by the instructor stat= ing the pilot could not meet the instruement standards and the pilot signatu= re acknowledging that. If the pilot is willing to put in the time we can us= ually get them back up to speed but we will not compromise our standards. >> =20 >> Jeff --the hardass. --Apple-Mail-6403C7F9-2CC4-4E50-8F17-62DE2447C56C Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
True comments about judgment vs technical skill.  However, judgement improves with experience and can be modified positively with appropriate training.  Sometimes even social interaction can have the same effect.  LOBO seeks to accomplish this and I think it is working.

John Barrett. 

Sent from my iPad


On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Ted Noel <tednoel@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

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.
--Apple-Mail-6403C7F9-2CC4-4E50-8F17-62DE2447C56C--