The statistic, which holds true across a great deal of the general aviation community, is that about 5% of type club members participate in the training provided by that type club. Other formal training that is not associated with type clubs (in the case of piston Beechcraft, BPT, FlightSafety, SIMCOM and others) is in addition to that, although the combined total is abysmally small regardless. What we don't know is how many train more frequently than the required minimum with local instructors--increasing the knowledge base of local instructors is the reason behind the ABS Flight Instructor Academy. My insurance industry contacts tell me they have very little indication that more-than-minimum training goes on voluntarily. I applaud those BTers who train much more diligently than the general population.

Someone said they think I favor more regulation. Yes, but only in this respect: I don't think we need to mandate more training than we already must receive. I just believe we need to make that training more effective by stipulating minimum tasks to complete a Flight Review just like we must complete specific Practical Test Standards tasks to complete an IPC. The only exception, as I've written recently, is that I think we need to include ADM training in some form in the Flight Review requirement--which appears to be the prevailing opinion here too.



That would be the Type Club Coalition, of which ABS is a founding member (and for which I served as chairman for about 18 months). COPA is a participant. I'm hoping EAA puts more resources behind it, but it was created specifically to share type-specific training best practices among type clubs for their mutual betterment. See http://www.eaa.org/typeclubs.

Tony,

Please provide the link/source to these stats. I've not seen them.

I agree, safety is always the first priority. But if someone is safe, has been safe, uses good judgment, demonstrates same time and time again, I find it hard to believe that 'said person's' safety can be significantly improved.

Good for Cirrus and their efforts. From what I've read they needed to do something.

Our stats consistently show that it is NOT the aircraft but rather the pilot that is the source of the vast majority of problems.

Tony, Matt,

I think you guys are talking past each other.

If I follow, Tony is focused on the GA flier who does not have an external job focus outside of GA which includes a massive amount of regulation or safety culture (e.g. Airline Pilots and Military). Matt was covering that group....

Tim

Some are always going to think they're bullet-proof.

Some are going to recognize they are not.

Most are always going to look at statistics to support their beliefs.

Rarely have I seen a BT conversation change one from the other.

It's fun to try.

Well said Jim C.!

How many ABS members actually own an airplane?
How many ABS members fill out that silly survey? I certainly didn't.
How many ABS members (like me) get far more intense training on a semi-annual basis as part of their professional life?

Statistics like the above really don't amount to a hill of beans.



That's a bit over-the-top... especially when based on such a sketchy statistic.
I'm a big fan of initial and recurrent training (even for bug-smashers), but I would be wary of believing (or drawing conclusions about personal ethics based on) a statistic like that put out by an organization that is also selling training.

I confess, I changed. I thought I was bullet-proof and a great pilot. Now I train often, at least 4-5 hours a quarter, with an instructor and I hope and pray I don't make any foolish mistakes. I fly 200 hours a year, some ifr, some challenging ifr. If I'm flying to minimums then I've really, really done a poor job with my flight planning (likewise if I get ice, although there are some people here that are comfortable with it. I'm a Florida boy and I ain't).

I had a runaway autopilot on an IFR approach a month ago. I was very glad I had some upset training with some emphasis on trim runaway and autopilot issues. A serious issue was a none issue.

I fear the danger of flying and I hope that fear keeps me sharp. Keep preaching Nate, keep preaching. Hopefully the really poor, lazy, non-proficient pilots read your posts and get up on their game. Hopefully it will save some pilots and passengers.

Who thinks they are bullet proof?

Some.

Like Michael, I use to.

Fair enough. Does it make any difference if that organization is a not-for-profit selling training at break-even cost, like ABS?

I think my bigger argument was in calling someone a fool based on some questionable re-telling of half-heard statistics (Tom fleshed out the details and assumptions of those statistics a bit better).

Other than BPPP, I've learned more from non-credentialed Beech enthusiasts than from formal instruction.

This is a great discussion!

If GA has a safety problem it is because of the very nature of GA. If you've got the $ you can get your license and if you've got the $ you can buy and get checked out in pretty much any airplane you want. The standardization of training sucks.

I think Cirrus recognized this fact and are trying their best to keep their owners trained, informed and current. By doing this they will improve their safety record and also improve sales because of the perceived safety of their product. Like I said in an earlier post, they're smart.

ABS is smart too in that they have had, for years, a very exceptional training program for those of us lucky enough to own a Beechcraft. Now, whether you take part in this training is your own business. I personally haven't but I've gone to King Air school, keep my CFII/MEI updated and give plenty of IPC's and Flight Reviews along with self training in my Baron and Pitts. What is self training? Anytime you go out to fly, by yourself, to practice stalls, slow flight, approaches, holding, aerobatics, patterns, single engine work in a twin, etc., etc., you are self training. If people would self train more often they would keep their stick and rudder as well as knowledge skills honed to a much higher level. I fear that many pilots fly only when they have a "reason" like a business trip, visit relatives or going on vacation.

The bottom line is that being a safer pilot comes from piloting. Formal training is valuable and should be done when required (and make sure you don't just go thru the motions and get a very complete review).

Remember FLYING makes you a better pilot so go out and FLY.

So, has Cirrus successfully created a culture and lifestyle of safety? For a few years there, it looked like Cirrus had taken the mantle of 'Doctor Killer' away from the V-Tail Bonanzas. Either all the accidents waiting to happen did, or cirrus achieved a fundamental turnaround in the safety culture of their pilots.

Something good must be going on at Cirrus because they are delivering ~300 new airplanes a year. What are they doing right that Beech, Cessna and Piper aren't? The 'chute? Composites? Price? Design? All of these features can be argued about (and will no doubt) but the bottom line is Cirrus is selling new single engine airframes at close to the levels that Beech was selling them in the 1960's...... the supposed 'good 'ol days' never to be seen again.

I think that after a few years it was obvious that all of the safety features built into their aircraft were not making a difference in terms of their record. Because they weren't. In part this was because their marketing was bringing new people into aviation by emphasizing easy and convenient but these same people were obviously not making a commitment to training and proficiency. Also, the plane itself while it has fixed gear and no blue knob is not easier to fly than some other fast airplanes like a Bonanza.

So, Cirrus is wise to focus on safety, because just as they out sell everyone else based on modern technology and convenience if they can improve their safety record above the competition they will sell even more airplanes in comparison. So, this increased focus on safety is good for them but it's also good for GA.

When I did my transition training the IP kept saying with respect to maneuvers, approaches, etc. "what Cirrus expects" in terms of performance. It was irritating frankly and I told him so. But at the same time what they expect is PTS and IPC level performance, which is not that hard, and which we should all be able to perform to. I think they have discovered that many pilots cannot perform to this standard (see Tom's comments above in relation to this).

Much of private GA is devoted to recreational flying which is great. I think that Cirrus recognizes that this isn't enough to keep private GA alive. In order for private GA, at the non professionally flown level, to survive safety must be a cornerstone value which requires not only selling it but delivering. This in turn requires pilot performance at a level better than now.

I think they think there is a big enough market for small business aviation, and for private convenience flying (which requires a certain level of affluence which does exist around the world), to support them and other manufacturers. But I also think they believe that to bring these people into private GA requires a higher level of safety than has existed up til now. This has certainly been true in my own personal and business experience.