Finally......

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Actually, the fact that it's isolated does more to disprove your point. What if they were all trained by the same network instructors and examined by the same examiners or those who came from a similar network. Perhaps East Tennessee is the problem and not the entire country's CFI population under the age of 30.

You assume it is isolated. There's no proof of that. "What if" certainly provides no proof at all.

These particular individuals are only being exposed because of an exceptionally egregious accident, where the pilot involved has posted massive amounts of video evidence over a period of time.

You seem to be extremely invested in defending the indefensible, rather than correcting the correctable.

[sparky127]

It's nothing like that at all in my experience. Many pilots fail tests or take more than the minimum hours to qualify because of a lack of proficiency.

That's awesome!  So... How did this one fall through the cracks?

[perdue3]

You assume it is isolated. There's no proof of that. "What if" certainly provides no proof at all.

These particular individuals are only being exposed because of an exceptionally egregious accident, where the pilot involved has posted massive amounts of video evidence over a period of time.

You seem to be extremely invested in defending the indefensible, rather than correcting the correctable.

Alright Boomer, all CFI's who are young are trash. You win.

[perdue3]

That's awesome!  So... How did this one fall through the cracks?

Because all young pilots are bad at piloting, clearly.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Alright Boomer, all CFI's who are young are trash. You win.

Who said that?

I did not. Nor did I imply that.

You've reduced your argument to pathetic name calling. Congratulations.

[hazmatt]

LOL! That is one of the funniest insults ever.

The two funniest I've heard are that one (and I'm a GenXer) Maroon.
I also had a guy once tell me all white people are racist... I didn't tell him that my wife is not white and my kids are bi-racial. Maroon.

I did hear a gen Zer mention how he didn't know how to change a tire like it was too complicated for him. You would think he could have looked it up in a youtube video to find out. Maroon.

[Spikes]

You assume it is isolated. There's no proof of that. "What if" certainly provides no proof at all.

These particular individuals are only being exposed because of an exceptionally egregious accident, where the pilot involved has posted massive amounts of video evidence over a period of time.

You seem to be extremely invested in defending the indefensible, rather than correcting the correctable.

Do you have any proof that it's a widespread problem among the entire country, possibly the world?

I suppose every time there's a car crash, the person who conducted the road test and passed an individual is to blame, even after possibly years of driving?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Do you have any proof that it's a widespread problem among the entire country, possibly the world?

I suppose every time there's a car crash, the person who conducted the road test and passed an individual is to blame, even after possibly years of driving?

In reviewing a considerable number of the reports, there seems to be a widespread problem. A considerable number of industry experts seem to say so as well.


I never said that the CFI was responsible in every case. Never even hinted that. Never even said that only young CFI's were at fault.

And the operation of a car is not really comparable to the operation of a GA aircraft.

[perdue3]

What passed for a CFI these days is frightening.

I was responding to this, which was a generalization statement. What you said here implied that new CFI's ("these days" referring to the present and not the past) are not proficient or as capable as CFI's of old. My point is that this pilot made poor decisions and got behind the airplane. She was not flying it, she was preoccupied with avionics and other matters. Even if that is a CFI's fault, which I argue it is not, it certainly is not the entire population of new CFIs' fault.

The moment we become pilots, those skills perish if we do not use them and hone them frequently. A CFI and DPE look at boxes, check them, and then test for proficiency. If a pilot checks all these boxes and meets criteria, a license is given. What happens after that is on the pilot. That is my point. New CFIs out there would be offended by your statement. Just because one or two apples in a bushel are rotten, doesn't mean the entire bushel is rotten, damn sure not the entire orchard.

All I tried to point out was that your statement was a generalization and a very unfair one. SOME young CFIs are perhaps not as diligent or as responsible as they should be, but not all. I'd say the same about ALL CFIs, regardless of experience or age. 

As for the ad hominem, I'd argue that it was the natural course of this conversation considering your previous reply. I have made my points, you can write them off as rubbish if you like. I have my opinion, you have yours.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I was responding to this, which was a generalization statement. What you said here implied that new CFI's ("these days" referring to the present and not the past) are not proficient or as capable as CFI's of old. My point is that this pilot made poor decisions and got behind the airplane. She was not flying it, she was preoccupied with avionics and other matters. Even if that is a CFI's fault, which I argue it is not, it certainly is not the entire population of new CFIs' fault.

The moment we become pilots, those skills perish if we do not use them and hone them frequently. A CFI and DPE look at boxes, check them, and then test for proficiency. If a pilot checks all these boxes and meets criteria, a license is given. What happens after that is on the pilot. That is my point. New CFIs out there would be offended by your statement. Just because one or two apples in a bushel are rotten, doesn't mean the entire bushel is rotten, damn sure not the entire orchard.

All I tried to point out was that your statement was a generalization and a very unfair one. SOME young CFIs are perhaps not as diligent or as responsible as they should be, but not all. I'd say the same about ALL CFIs, regardless of experience or age. 

As for the ad hominem, I'd argue that it was the natural course of this conversation considering your previous reply. I have made my points, you can write them off as rubbish if you like. I have my opinion, you have yours.

You go watch the videos posted by the dead pilot (TNflygirl), with multiple CFI's present in the cockpit, and tell us how great they did teaching her. If they couldn't teach her, it was their responsibility to report her as being unsafe. They failed that, too. While you're at it, tell us that only those CFI's are like that.

If I were a CFI, what I'd be offended by is that there were people out there turning out pilots like that, holding the same certificate I did, and earning money doing it.

As for the ad hominem, it shows exactly what your argument is, if it is written off as rubbish, well.......

My argument is that there are people out there making the skies more dangerous than they should be, and anyone flying should be more worried about that than how offended people are. Offended is survivable. Dead isn't. By definition.

[Spikes]

And the operation of a car is not really comparable to the operation of a GA aircraft.

Why not? They are both complex machines. They both require a written and practical test to operate legally. They both present the opportunity to harm the operator or others if operated improperly.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Why not? They are both complex machines. They both require a written and practical test to operate legally. They both present the opportunity to harm the operator or others if operated improperly.

You should know the answer. And if you don't, there's no need to expand on the subject.

[perdue3]

You go watch the videos posted by the dead pilot (TNflygirl), with multiple CFI's present in the cockpit, and tell us how great they did teaching her. If they couldn't teach her, it was their responsibility to report her as being unsafe. They failed that, too. While you're at it, tell us that only those CFI's are like that.

If I were a CFI, what I'd be offended by is that there were people out there turning out pilots like that, holding the same certificate I did, and earning money doing it.

As for the ad hominem, it shows exactly what your argument is, if it is written off as rubbish, well.......

My argument is that there are people out there making the skies more dangerous than they should be, and anyone flying should be more worried about that than how offended people are. Offended is survivable. Dead isn't. By definition.

I'll grant you that some CFIs are poor at their craft. And that number is alarmingly large. But, I won't say that it's most of the CFI population. You generalized a large portion of the entire CFI population and I tried to point out that that isn't fair. Most CFIs are excellent at what they do and they provide a rigorous course to their trainees. Disagree if you like.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I'll grant you that some CFIs are poor at their craft. And that number is alarmingly large. But, I won't say that it's most of the CFI population. You generalized a large portion of the entire CFI population and I tried to point out that that isn't fair. Most CFIs are excellent at what they do and they provide a rigorous course to their trainees. Disagree if you like.

You assumed that generalization. I didn't say "all". Therein lies the problem. As you admit, the number of bad CFI's is alarmingly large. Meaning that a large number of them "passed as a CFI." And that is what I said. That's a reflection on the system, and not the good CFI's. I will agree that some are excellent. I wish most were. If most were, excellence would be average. That would be awesome. And this discussion would never have happened.

The point here is that at least four CFI's saw obviously bad flying. Not only did they not fix it, they often exacerbated it, and they also failed to report it. Worse still, in 400 flying and training hours (most of her videos featured a CFI), she got precious little good training. If she had 6 CFI's, and I think the number is 5-6, and 4 failed that badly, those odds are horrific. That number should scare anyone who flies, or wants to, and piss them off.

I love aircraft. I like to see them flying. Or on display. I've seen far too many, in person, lying in pieces, with bodies in and around them. Too often easily preventable. And I'm not saying that CFI's are the only problem. Complacency and hubris are big factors.

See, I do not take people calling out a profession as an insult, even when the profession is my own. When people say that mechanics are bad, I agree. And I'm not offended by it. Why? Because I know they're bad. I clean up after them. I see the damage they do. It was the same when I was an electrician. And when I drove a truck. And when I was in law enforcement. The bad ones make everything extremely difficult for the rest. I want them called out. Consistently. Constantly. I taught/trained in those professions. And I had no problem being the jerk that washed out the ones who could not or would not get it. I hope I made a difference. I wish that I could be sure that I never let any bad ones slip through.

[Shuffler]

Watching even a few of those videos are enlightenning.