maxbc wrote:
I think it really depends on the average skill in the club. But if pilots don’t fly on the type very often, they’re likely to get a little overwhelmed or transport some reflexes from another type. The best I could see is waiving the type-specific checkride if you fly enough on the type. At least I can’t corroborate about a systemic problem with unjustified checkrides, since in our club we’ve had enough accidents to warrant caution on specific types.
The background to this was because a pilot hadn’t flown for a while and wanted refresher training with a flight instructor, so off they went in an Archer, flew for about an hour, reviewing flight conditions and processes only for them to experience a total loss of power about 4 miles to the north east of the field.
Heroically the flight instructor took over and made a perfect forced landing into a corn field, returning to the airfield to receive the adulation of others – until they learnt that the engine failure was because of an excess of air in the left hand tank and upon engine failure at 3000 feet, the instructor had made no attempt to swap tanks – because he was so used to flying a Cessna with BOTH settings for fuel – thus performing an emergency landing with 20 gallons plus of fuel untapped in the right hand tank….
Due to that, that particular club demands check rides annually on each type – I pointed out it makes no sense to do one for a P28A and for a C172 but they demanded it. Stopped me flying with them and started me looking for my own aircraft…..
I have only flown in 2 clubs so far.
In my previous club you had to ask permission from an instructor if you hadn’t flown for 2 months in a specific type.
I managed to get some leeway since i was still flying the big iron.
In the club now, you have to ask permission if you haven’t flown for 2 months in general or 2 months not in a complex airplane.
In addition there is just a general check flight per year witch a possible exemption for 1 year.
I do understand that in some cases these rules are a necessity. I have seen pilots where i don’t want to let my family fly with them, even if they are current
But there needs to be some degree of flexibility for pilots flying at a different place or type or with a lot of experience etc.
FlyingAppel wrote:
In my previous club you had to ask permission from an instructor if you hadn’t flown for 2 months in a specific type.
I managed to get some leeway since i was still flying the big iron.In the club now, you have to ask permission if you haven’t flown for 2 months in general or 2 months not in a complex airplane.
In addition there is just a general check flight per year witch a possible exemption for 1 year.
I very much doubt there is any evidence that this actually reduces accidents or damage…
I do understand that in some cases these rules are a necessity. I have seen pilots where i don’t want to let my family fly with them, even if they are current
So have I, but then the problem that should be addressed are the pilots and not pointless check flights.
How do you address the pilots? Serious question.
gallois wrote:
How do you address the pilots? Serious question.
I’m pretty sure that “everyone” knows who these pilots are, but it is socially easier to force everyone to do check flights, rather than singling out those can could cause problems. In any case from that point of view, very little change in two months.
I ask because we do have a “if you do not fly for 2 months you need to take a flight with an instructor” at our club. I had rather thought you might have a better way. I agree with you it doesn’t seem to give added safety as those that think they need a bit of a refresher if they haven’t flown for a while, will ask for one.
Steve6443 wrote:
Heroically the flight instructor took over and made a perfect forced landing into a corn field, returning to the airfield to receive the adulation of others – until they learnt that the engine failure was because of an excess of air in the left hand tank and upon engine failure at 3000 feet, the instructor had made no attempt to swap tanks – because he was so used to flying a Cessna with BOTH settings for fuel – thus performing an emergency landing with 20 gallons plus of fuel untapped in the right hand tank….
That’s a good story indeed 
After a deadly accident a few years back in an UL, I got a bit involved in it due to different strings. It was almost the same thing as above, but more straight out differential training to a new type. The instructor died. The cause was pilot error. I had lots of talks with the investigation people, and the main issue they wanted to discuss was how the instructors competence was kept on a reasonable level, adequate for a particular job, and who and how was the competence assessed.
IMO this seems to be one typical error a club does. It’s lack of risk assessment with the assumption that any flight with an instructor is a safer flight, and it will cause safer flights in the future for the pilot. There is no automatic one leads to another, because the initial assumption is usually flawed. He may be a good pilot, and a good instructor, but not necessarily a “safer” pilot. He successfully landed in that corn field (good pilot), but forgot to manage fuel on the type (“unsafe” pilot). He objectively was safe, because he managed an emergency well (leaving an aircraft unhurt is always a good thing). But, the emergency was caused by his neglect of procedures, or was it? Objectively and legally, of course, but putting blame doesn’t help here. He probably simply went along as a “passenger”, having flown with the pilot many times before. Mostly only to comfort the pilot who was a bit rusty. Consequently he didn’t pay enough attention with the actual flight.
What the investigation people would ask me with this incident, if I were the instructor, would prob 100 be: How was the seemingly legally instructional flight planned up front? Was the plan followed? Was it decided up front who was PIC? Which procedures and maneuvers was planned and which were done etc etc. Did both have a clear view of what the purpose of the flight was?
The root cause IMO is usually that a club administration has zero competence or experience in rule making and safety/risk assessment caused by those rules, or instructing for that matter. Comfort and peace of mind under false pretenses, is not good for safety. It’s better to make as few “club rules” as possible. I’m confident that in the above case, a safer way is for the pilot to do proper homework instead of believing that a cozy-flight with an instructor is some kind of safety precaution. It can be, but not without much more involvement by the pilot himself in any case. This can be done without any instructor.
This is IMO the sickness of today’s distorted safety bureaucracy climate. It’s mostly to clear one’s back, wash their own hands. The club can check off : “done a trip with an instructor according to club regulations” and all is fine. What actually is going on? no one cares as long as their back is clear.
LeSving wrote:
The root cause IMO is usually that a club administration has zero competence or experience in rule making and safety/risk assessment caused by those rules, or instructing for that matter. Comfort and peace of mind under false pretenses, is not good for safety. It’s better to make as few “club rules” as possible.
I couldn’t agree more!
