-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
No more Solo X-C for IFS students?
- Thread starter usnphoenix
- Start date
This is not intended to be a thread jack, nor is it aimed at anyone posting here, but in regard to the notion that the navy is reacting in a "knee jerk" fashion.
I have followed the investigation of the Milton IFS accident. That accident was on 23 Sept. 2002. The investigation is availble on the NTSB web site.
The NTSB report found, in part:
“The electric fuel pump was labeled ‘automotive electric fuel pump’ and ‘not recommended for use in aircraft applications.’” It was not a cause of the accident. The NTSB report went on:
“Examination of the airplane found the mixture control separated at or near the mounting bracket, adjacent to the carburetor. The inner cable strands were worn; the outer cable sleeve was corroded. Visual examination of the broken wire ends with the aid of an optical microscope revealed that all of the wires had severe wear, and that most were worn completely through before the final fracture.
“The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
“A sheared mixture cable which resulted in a loss of engine power.”
These findings were published months after the accident.
The navy, however, had suspended (terminated?) the IFS contract of that FBO immediately after the accident. Was the navy's action in that case "knee jerk?" On the contrary, the navy shut down its use of an operator whose maintenance standards were rather shoddy, even though the navy did not yet have evidence of that.
Now to the question of the navy's reaction to the recent accident. It seems to depend on the purpose of IFS. If the purpose is to shorten the flight school curriculum by substituting civilian instruction for the beginning of flight training, then maybe this reaction is harmful to training. On the other hand, if IFS is an introduction to flight for soon-to-be SNA/SNFOs, to make sure they don't become uncontrollably sick every time they enter a 30 degree bank and to make certain that they can show a little aptitude for flying, then the presence or absence of the instructor is irrelevant. In other words, the presence of the instructor does not get in the way of the training desired.
Like some others on this thread, I knew Kenny. I attended his funeral. It was one of the saddest days of my life. The Marine Corps lost a fine young officer and leader. His family lost a son and brother. The nation lost a good marine. Might an experienced instructor have been able to better "manage" the crash, so as to have gotten down without any fatalities? Maybe not. But he might have.
Maybe the navy is overreacting. If so, it will likely go back to the old way. But in the meantime, what harm is done to the traing program?
Maybe, sometimes, the guys with the 50 lb. brains need to be given some credit.
My $.02.
I have followed the investigation of the Milton IFS accident. That accident was on 23 Sept. 2002. The investigation is availble on the NTSB web site.
The NTSB report found, in part:
“The electric fuel pump was labeled ‘automotive electric fuel pump’ and ‘not recommended for use in aircraft applications.’” It was not a cause of the accident. The NTSB report went on:
“Examination of the airplane found the mixture control separated at or near the mounting bracket, adjacent to the carburetor. The inner cable strands were worn; the outer cable sleeve was corroded. Visual examination of the broken wire ends with the aid of an optical microscope revealed that all of the wires had severe wear, and that most were worn completely through before the final fracture.
“The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
“A sheared mixture cable which resulted in a loss of engine power.”
These findings were published months after the accident.
The navy, however, had suspended (terminated?) the IFS contract of that FBO immediately after the accident. Was the navy's action in that case "knee jerk?" On the contrary, the navy shut down its use of an operator whose maintenance standards were rather shoddy, even though the navy did not yet have evidence of that.
Now to the question of the navy's reaction to the recent accident. It seems to depend on the purpose of IFS. If the purpose is to shorten the flight school curriculum by substituting civilian instruction for the beginning of flight training, then maybe this reaction is harmful to training. On the other hand, if IFS is an introduction to flight for soon-to-be SNA/SNFOs, to make sure they don't become uncontrollably sick every time they enter a 30 degree bank and to make certain that they can show a little aptitude for flying, then the presence or absence of the instructor is irrelevant. In other words, the presence of the instructor does not get in the way of the training desired.
Like some others on this thread, I knew Kenny. I attended his funeral. It was one of the saddest days of my life. The Marine Corps lost a fine young officer and leader. His family lost a son and brother. The nation lost a good marine. Might an experienced instructor have been able to better "manage" the crash, so as to have gotten down without any fatalities? Maybe not. But he might have.
Maybe the navy is overreacting. If so, it will likely go back to the old way. But in the meantime, what harm is done to the traing program?
Maybe, sometimes, the guys with the 50 lb. brains need to be given some credit.
My $.02.
jamnww said:
OK, I can't say for sure if any of you got short changed on EPs or systems in IFS. Maybe you did. Lets not forget though, it is a single engine fixed prop and welded gear general aviation aircraft that probably weights less then 2000lbs. There just isn't that much to know, or even do, in the event of an emergancy. Take out all the CYA lawyer talk and there are probably only 3 pages in the EP section of the pilot operation handbook. Heck, after flying the S-3 and transport category jet aircraft I just can't get over how simple and basic my Cessna 170B is. That is why I love to fly it. Not much to worry about. Not much to go wrong.
Fly Navy said:
failure of the student...how is the student supposed to know any better at that point? Good for you that you went somewhere that stressed it...very good for you actually then again, a lot of what I am learning now makes much more sense...
DISREGARD - I decided its a retorical (yeah i know spelling) question...
I'm gonna have to calle BS on this. IFS is flown at flight schools who are certified to train under Part 141 of the FAR's. Maybe you know what this means, maybe you don't. Not my problem either way. If you don't know, look it up. The point is, these guys in the IFS curriculum are flying with flight instructors who work for a flight school who have already shown they follow a certain syllabus when training their students (under Part 141 standards, which IFS students fall under). If they aren't/weren't taught EP's (the few that there are at this level), then these schools need to be looked at again.
Steve Wilkins said:
Yes I know what you are talking about and I know what you mean, hell maybe someone should go back and look at them...me, I am just a little too busy right now doing my job in another section of the pipeline...
As for whether it really happened or not, well I know how it was went I did it and thats all I have to go off of...and that was well over a year ago so take it with a grain of salt if you like. As for the quality of the instructors in IFS, well mine varied...I had one that was leaving in a month and would regularly talk on the cell while in the air...and another who was just flat out pissed off about having to teach people to fly, he had another job...others were good though and IFS was a good time, a paid vacation compared to later stages...
EDIT: not intended to be as blunt and harsh as it sounds...just tired...
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/media/F_1215_N.txt
That's a preliminary report issued by the FAA. To wit:
That's a preliminary report issued by the FAA. To wit:
Now, I can't say for sure that this is the incident in question. But it sure seems to fit.
BurghGuy
Master your ego, and you own your destiny.
I know alot of guys get rushed through IFS with no EPs judging from the board thus far. But when I was in IFS just this past summer we spent at least 2 hours (two flights) just going over engine out EPs/stalls. We didn't do anything with spins though. I even had a pop quiz on my checkride before my solo x-country. It was a simed engine out and the IP gave me 45 seconds to visually locate an area to land within gliding distance. Difficult in the rolling hills of Western PA, but I did it no problem. Then I had to get into position to land, ect. ect. We also went over how to signal for an emergency and when to do it, and also how to prepare oneself in the event of a crash. We also discussed stalls on takeoffs and landings, although none were simmed, I guess I just lucked out and got a good school.
I did this at your typical private pilot school, they averaged about 3-5 navy IFS guys per year. So that proves that it wholey depends on the school teaching it. I feel that IFS is a program with the right idea in mind, but unfortunately the execution at some schools is poor. Now, did we get more special attention because there were only 3 of us at this school, and probably a few dozen at IFS here? I can guarentee it. So maybe thats the best way to run the program.
I did this at your typical private pilot school, they averaged about 3-5 navy IFS guys per year. So that proves that it wholey depends on the school teaching it. I feel that IFS is a program with the right idea in mind, but unfortunately the execution at some schools is poor. Now, did we get more special attention because there were only 3 of us at this school, and probably a few dozen at IFS here? I can guarentee it. So maybe thats the best way to run the program.
BurghGuy said:
jeese, 45 seconds, i give my airplane students maybe 10 before i start giving hints. I give my glider guys maybe .03 seconds to find a field (incase of a rope break on t/o)
of course it all depends on altitude for powered guys. most of the flying in FL is around 3000 feet and 45 seconds is along time to be spending on finding a field. that should be out of the way fast so you have time to do your procedures
BurghGuy
Master your ego, and you own your destiny.
Well I don't recall the exact amount of time. He just told me, "Your engines out, find a field and do it fast". The first time I was in an airplane that wasn't commercial was about a month and 20 hours prior. So being a newbie, my mind lost all sense of time as a unit of measure. I just used the 45/30 sec thing as a placeholder. And now that I think back, it probably didn't take nearly that long. I should have just said, a few seconds. But neither of us was timing, so it could have been that long for all I know. I mean, I WAS (and still am,) a newbie in aviation.
Either way, my point still stands that what experience you get depends on the school. Not that it's necessarily always the schools fault either.
Either way, my point still stands that what experience you get depends on the school. Not that it's necessarily always the schools fault either.
BurghGuy
Master your ego, and you own your destiny.
Doesn't it always though? I guess if you've got enough air underneith of you, you can take your good ol' time with emergency procedures......?
Just curious though. What's the point in a glider when you need to look for an emergency field? I've never been in one and you seem like the guy to ask. i.e. when do you know somethings not going right?
Just curious though. What's the point in a glider when you need to look for an emergency field? I've never been in one and you seem like the guy to ask. i.e. when do you know somethings not going right?
BurghGuy said:
with gliding, you put a lot of stress on the rope tow after tow. so unless you replace it on a regular basis, or get a bad rope, there is a chance the rope can break (or something go wrong with the towplane, i.e. their engine fails). hopefully it will break when you just start rolling but it might break 100 ft (altitude) off the runway where you dont have enough runway infront of you and dont have enough altitude to turn around. when this happens you have to land straight ahead in a field of some kind.
most glider fields have emergency landing fields pointed out but in training, one of the things i do is ask the student if the rope breaks now where would you go (asking every 3 seconds because it changes due to gliding distance)
and of course, when doing x-countries in gliders, when you get to a certain altitude, you start looking for a field to land at.