I concur that recurrent training is very necessary and very valuable, provided the training is worth while and accomplishes its overall goal: proficiency. Where are you going to get that proficiency? Aviation is an experience-based endeavor, where training sets the basis for the experience level that ultimately follows. Currency is the conduit in which to achieve proficiency. Recurrent training is the follow-on experience building blocks that are essential in reducing risk, developing piloting skills, established good discipline, procedures and experience. I do not agree that simulator based training is the panacea that Mr. Moloney asserts and doubtful that it would have assisted as much as is asserted in this article.
Training is only as valuable as the venue and quality provided, and even \”full motion\” simulation is only partial motion. And getting the dials and control inputs to match what a real aircraft provides is only just that \”simulation\”, or simulated training.
A GA pilot that has a single engine land or multi-engine private pilot license with an instrument rating and flies maybe 100 hours per year might only be obtaining currency while hardly scratching the surface of proficiency. That vaunted simulated training will do nothing for a guy like that other than assist in procedures training, and satisfy an arbitrarily established requirement to write policy.
Now just imagine if this individual was given the option of recurrent training in a simulator for a round of simulated training or an option of training in his own aircraft in the area where he typically operates, and asked to perform a laundry list of activities that would encompass the entire list of items from Form 8410, PIC proficiency check on an annual basis. Which one do you think most would opt for? I\’d submit that most type A personalities, the type that own aircraft tend to be type A, would rather fly the airplane, as they will 1) get more experience in their airplane; 2) get a chance to see how their aircraft performs as provided by the performance charts for their aircraft 3) get much more proficient operating their avionics particularly if the aircraft being insured has any number of complexities and many single engine aircraft today do in fact have, i.e. GPS, MFD, auto pilot, etc, in a dynamic environment. Just think if JFK Jr had merely engaged his auto pilot and selected an approach on his GMN 430, the results that night might have been completely different and 4) been able to NOT travel to a distant class room, with a group of students, of varying experience and proficiency levels, fly a box that may or may not have their avionics, may or may not be the same aircraft model they own and operate, but the insurance company demanded they fly something to get to fly their own aircraft to get a policy.
Training and proficiency is important, what type of training obtained makes a big difference. Simulator training is just that simulated training, and in many instances negative training. It would seem to me the goal is managing risk, so lets do that, give an option for well-supervised training in the aircraft. There are way too many variables to the why individuals configure their aircraft; we\’re not dealing with fleets of aircraft like an airline. So lets deal with what we really do want to happen, fewer claims, and underwrite training in the aircraft. You’ve just got to get to know what it feels like to fly your light twin with one engine at zero thrust and how to get there, AND how to establish yourself correctly using proper procedures for a single engine, engine out landing in a sound supervised training environment.
Dave Garvey
Principal
Aviation Training Management LLC
when proficiency and safety matter..
I concur that recurrent training is very necessary and very valuable, provided the training is worth while and accomplishes its overall goal: proficiency. Where are you going to get that proficiency? Aviation is an experience-based endeavor, where training sets the basis for the experience level that ultimately follows. Currency is the conduit in which to achieve proficiency. Recurrent training is the follow-on experience building blocks that are essential in reducing risk, developing piloting skills, established good discipline, procedures and experience. I do not agree that simulator based training is the panacea that Mr. Moloney asserts and doubtful that it would have assisted as much as is asserted in this article.
Training is only as valuable as the venue and quality provided, and even \”full motion\” simulation is only partial motion. And getting the dials and control inputs to match what a real aircraft provides is only just that \”simulation\”, or simulated training.
A GA pilot that has a single engine land or multi-engine private pilot license with an instrument rating and flies maybe 100 hours per year might only be obtaining currency while hardly scratching the surface of proficiency. That vaunted simulated training will do nothing for a guy like that other than assist in procedures training, and satisfy an arbitrarily established requirement to write policy.
Now just imagine if this individual was given the option of recurrent training in a simulator for a round of simulated training or an option of training in his own aircraft in the area where he typically operates, and asked to perform a laundry list of activities that would encompass the entire list of items from Form 8410, PIC proficiency check on an annual basis. Which one do you think most would opt for? I\’d submit that most type A personalities, the type that own aircraft tend to be type A, would rather fly the airplane, as they will 1) get more experience in their airplane; 2) get a chance to see how their aircraft performs as provided by the performance charts for their aircraft 3) get much more proficient operating their avionics particularly if the aircraft being insured has any number of complexities and many single engine aircraft today do in fact have, i.e. GPS, MFD, auto pilot, etc, in a dynamic environment. Just think if JFK Jr had merely engaged his auto pilot and selected an approach on his GMN 430, the results that night might have been completely different and 4) been able to NOT travel to a distant class room, with a group of students, of varying experience and proficiency levels, fly a box that may or may not have their avionics, may or may not be the same aircraft model they own and operate, but the insurance company demanded they fly something to get to fly their own aircraft to get a policy.
Training and proficiency is important, what type of training obtained makes a big difference. Simulator training is just that simulated training, and in many instances negative training. It would seem to me the goal is managing risk, so lets do that, give an option for well-supervised training in the aircraft. There are way too many variables to the why individuals configure their aircraft; we\’re not dealing with fleets of aircraft like an airline. So lets deal with what we really do want to happen, fewer claims, and underwrite training in the aircraft. You’ve just got to get to know what it feels like to fly your light twin with one engine at zero thrust and how to get there, AND how to establish yourself correctly using proper procedures for a single engine, engine out landing in a sound supervised training environment.
Dave Garvey
Principal
Aviation Training Management LLC
when proficiency and safety matter..