Quote:
Originally Posted by TFaudree_ERAU  I know you haven't "met" me, but damn, talk about a vast generalization. I happen to fly a Cirrus for our company and have had the task of teaching a 10,000+ hour corporate jet captain (who I fly with in a Lear) the ins and outs of a SR22/Avidyne package, which I feel qualifies me to say that I don't need remedial training. We commute in it on occasion and fly in and out of a 2270' runway that a lot of 182 pilots won't bother with. While I hate the airplane itself, would never own one, and happen to agree that there are a lot of "money men" that shouldn't be flying one, you just can't make a generalization like that.
Puddlejumper doesn't need remedial training either. I know that for a fact. |
WOW!! Are you seriously saying that you see
no value in recurrent/remedial training for you? In aviaiton you are either improving or you are atrophying. I have yet to meet someone who couldn't benifit from a training opportunity. I personally think there is a tremendous value in recurrent training. If you've ever read Bob Miller's
Over the Airwaves or done much instruction with GA pilots, you know that it's a struggle for GA pilots to maintain proficiency in high workload environments -- a fact that is proven over and over again in the NTSB's files. Statistics from the AOPA say that the average GA pilot flies less than 50 hrs per year. For every CFI that flies hundreds of hours per year there are handfulls of pilots who balance out the average. How much proficiency in high workload environments can one maintain on 50 hrs a year?
Just curious who you think
does need remedial training if Cirrius pilots and "puddlejumpers" don't.