What is the intended mission of the PRA Web Site? Where are the files that were once there?

[querist]

I know a little bit about tech. One of my degrees is in Computer Science and I used to at one point be a J2EE developer with emphasis on middleware and cryptography and PKI. Later I was a security analyst for application security for the 8th largest database set in the world.
Trust me I understand the challenges very well. PRA had a membership of 1500 which dwindled down to 250 and has come back up now to around 350. Simply because people did not have any way to renew membership properly for a few years. The damage done is quite extensive. The volunteering is happening. When someone cannot do something, they should approach the board and suggest hiring a professional to do it. That is what happens now. But a simple website with secure members only area is not that expensive to get and does not take years and years. That is utter rubbish. Chance was 3 years. Is 3 years enough to put up a working website? Hell yes. If you would like to lend a hand to PRA in technical area, should talk to Bobby.

I am less concerned about dearth of DPEs and more concerned about dearth of good instructors. DPEs are needed when instructors produce enough student pilots who are competent. It is the second step, not the first. The first step is to get some good professional instructors, near metro areas. That is not happening because well Chickens beget Chickens, and we have a dearth of Chickens to start with.

I did not know it was 3 years... wow.

I have contacted Bobby already, by the way. And I noticed that you're on the board, so thanks for stepping up to try to keep the PRA alive.

And I know it will be a while, but my eventual objective is to be a CFI. I'm a professional educator, so for me it is a natural extension to want to be able to teach something that I do and enjoy. (That and increasing CFIs is the first step in increasing DPEs since DPEs need to be CFIs with 2000+ flight hours and 500+ hours of dual instruction given.)

 

[Abid]

I did not know it was 3 years... wow.

I have contacted Bobby already, by the way. And I noticed that you're on the board, so thanks for stepping up to try to keep the PRA alive.

And I know it will be a while, but my eventual objective is to be a CFI. I'm a professional educator, so for me it is a natural extension to want to be able to teach something that I do and enjoy. (That and increasing CFIs is the first step in increasing DPEs since DPEs need to be CFIs with 2000+ flight hours and 500+ hours of dual instruction given.)

FAA had invited me to become a DPE for both trikes and gyroplanes. I did not take it. I may in future, but I am not an easy giver of licenses. Bare minimum skill level is not what I go by and does not jive with my philosophy

 

[JEFF TIPTON]

I may in future, but I am not an easy giver of licenses.

I can agree with that statement Abid. I have seen instructors who should be teaching in the fixed wing environment. The applicants should be able to perform the required maneuvers without serious doubt of the outcome!

 

[querist]

FAA had invited me to become a DPE for both trikes and gyroplanes. I did not take it. I may in future, but I am not an easy giver of licenses. Bare minimum skill level is not what I go by and does not jive with my philosophy

As a professional educator, I agree with that philosophy, but also need to point out that "if the minimum wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum."

The standards exist to define the minimum performance level that must be demonstrated in order to pass the test, and in theory if someone meets those requirements then the person should be passed. I'm not that guy. If I miss _anything_ on a test, I go back and find out what I missed to I can be sure I know it, but we need to find a balance between wanting to ensure that people are highly skilled pilots before passing them and following the guidelines set out by the appropriate authority (in your case, the FAA.).

(I'm an FCC amateur radio examiner.)

 

[Abid]

As a professional educator, I agree with that philosophy, but also need to point out that "if the minimum wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum."

The standards exist to define the minimum performance level that must be demonstrated in order to pass the test, and in theory if someone meets those requirements then the person should be passed. I'm not that guy. If I miss _anything_ on a test, I go back and find out what I missed to I can be sure I know it, but we need to find a balance between wanting to ensure that people are highly skilled pilots before passing them and following the guidelines set out by the appropriate authority (in your case, the FAA.).

(I'm an FCC amateur radio examiner.)

In case of aircraft, bare minimum on everything is a recipe to have an accident later on.
Practical Test Standard minimum requirements have a lot of leeway for the examiner. For instance, I can ask you to show be just a rectangular course ground reference maneuver or I can ask you to show me rectangular course, turn around a point and S turns all. That is up to the examiner.
I can test your knowledge on the ground about concepts and why certain actions are taken or I can test that knowledge by creating scenarios in flight or on takeoff. So many subtle differences that will reveal in different ways and at different levels of your knowledge and learning. All within allowed discretion.
In gyroplanes many pilots are doing a Sport Pilot Add-On. They take the check ride with another instructor. The instructors many times are not thorough in this check ride because the person is already a pilot. However, that is left completely to the instructor's discretion. There is in fact a minimum amount instructor has to check in a proficiency check ride but from what I know many do not

 

[querist]

In case of aircraft, bare minimum on everything is a recipe to have an accident later on.
Practical Test Standard minimum requirements have a lot of leeway for the examiner. For instance, I can ask you to show be just a rectangular course ground reference maneuver or I can ask you to show me rectangular course, turn around a point and S turns all. That is up to the examiner.
I can test your knowledge on the ground about concepts and why certain actions are taken or I can test that knowledge by creating scenarios in flight or on takeoff. So many subtle differences that will reveal in different ways and at different levels of your knowledge and learning. All within allowed discretion.
In gyroplanes many pilots are doing a Sport Pilot Add-On. They take the check ride with another instructor. The instructors many times are not thorough in this check ride because the person is already a pilot. However, that is left completely to the instructor's discretion. There is in fact a minimum amount instructor has to check in a proficiency check ride but from what I know many do not

If that is truly the case (... bare minimum on everything is a recipe to have an accident later on), then the FAA need to fix the standards so that there can be more consistent and objective requirements. I think they're trying to do that with the new ACS, but that's not filtered its way down to gyros yet.

 

[Abid]

If that is truly the case (... bare minimum on everything is a recipe to have an accident later on), then the FAA need to fix the standards so that there can be more consistent and objective requirements. I think they're trying to do that with the new ACS, but that's not filtered its way down to gyros yet.

We can wait for the government to babysit all our problems or we as a community know what the right thing to do is and require more thoroughness. As I said FAA has given certain leeway to the examiner and to the instructor. They gave it so we can use it if we want. There are always two people involved in FAA system to get a rating at a minimum.
You are learning to fly gyroplanes. Do you want to just get by with bare minimum or do you want to become a competent skilled pilot? The student is just as much a part of the system as anyone else.

 

[querist]

We can wait for the government to babysit all our problems or we as a community know what the right thing to do is and require more thoroughness. As I said FAA has given certain leeway to the examiner and to the instructor. They gave it so we can use it if we want. There are always two people involved in FAA system to get a rating at a minimum.
You are learning to fly gyroplanes. Do you want to just get by with bare minimum or do you want to become a competent skilled pilot? The student is just as much a part of the system as anyone else.

I personally want to be as competent a pilot as possible, and I understand that the initial "license" is only a license to operate the aircraft unsupervised and thus have more opportunities to improve.

 

[Abid]

I personally want to be as competent a pilot as possible, and I understand that the initial "license" is only a license to operate the aircraft unsupervised and thus have more opportunities to improve.

Great. So if I was your instructor and you came to me from Texas with an expectation that it will take 2 weeks to get you finished. Then those 2 weeks turned into 11 days as 3 days went to rain, low ceilings, thunderstorms. Now in the 11 days, you had 3 days where you plateaued and we did not make progress, so now we are down to real 8 days of progressive training. Is that enough given that 3 hours of flight time per day means 4.5 or 5 hours of time training (with ground briefings) and those 5 hours feel like your brain has been fire-hosed with information for 10 hours straight and since this learning requires physical as well as mental capacity put into action to develop muscle memory and co-ordination, your age definitely matters.
So tell me do you think in this case is 2 weeks enough to make someone a safe gyroplane pilot start to finish?
I know my experience and answer but people are always wanting to come for 10 days and leave with a signoff. It is a crying joke. It never works and I have seen people who were signed off this way elsewhere and there is no chance they would have ever gotten a sign off from me. Till this changes in the gyroplane world, we will not have less accidents.

 

[querist]

Great. So if I was your instructor and you came to me from Texas with an expectation that it will take 2 weeks to get you finished. Then those 2 weeks turned into 11 days as 3 days went to rain, low ceilings, thunderstorms. Now in the 11 days, you had 3 days where you plateaued and we did not make progress, so now we are down to real 8 days of progressive training. Is that enough given that 3 hours of flight time per day means 4.5 or 5 hours of time training (with ground briefings) and those 5 hours feel like your brain has been fire-hosed with information for 10 hours straight and since this learning requires physical as well as mental capacity put into action to develop muscle memory and co-ordination, your age definitely matters.
So tell me do you think in this case is 2 weeks enough to make someone a safe gyroplane pilot start to finish?
I know my experience and answer but people are always wanting to come for 10 days and leave with a signoff. It is a crying joke. It never works and I have seen people who were signed off this way elsewhere and there is no chance they would have ever gotten a sign off from me. Till this changes in the gyroplane world, we will not have less accidents.

The same expectations exist in many fields. My youngest son and I teach martial arts classes and people expect to be able to learn and master physical skills much more quickly than is possible. Granted, we are not at the mercy of the weather like flight training can be, but the challenges are similar. In any subject, and especially with physical skills, consistent practice is important. Apparently, some people do not understand that.

And, in the case you described, I would certainly not expect to be able to finish in two weeks, but I would not necessarily discount someone's ability to acquire physical skills simply based on age. It is a highly individual thing.

 

[querist]

We can wait for the government to babysit all our problems or we as a community know what the right thing to do is and require more thoroughness. As I said FAA has given certain leeway to the examiner and to the instructor. They gave it so we can use it if we want. There are always two people involved in FAA system to get a rating at a minimum.
You are learning to fly gyroplanes. Do you want to just get by with bare minimum or do you want to become a competent skilled pilot? The student is just as much a part of the system as anyone else.

It seems that you did not understand what I was trying to say. It is good that you want to ensure that students are held to a high standard. My point was that without clearer guidance in the standards, there is sufficient leeway that people you would consider to be unqualified to fly are being allowed to fly. That was my point.

 

[Abid]

It seems that you did not understand what I was trying to say. It is good that you want to ensure that students are held to a high standard. My point was that without clearer guidance in the standards, there is sufficient leeway that people you would consider to be unqualified to fly are being allowed to fly. That was my point.

That only happens when 2 not 1 person both think it is just fine to push out pilots like that. Unfortunately it does happen

 

[querist]

That only happens when 2 not 1 person both think it is just fine to push out pilots like that. Unfortunately it does happen

Exactly. Thus the apparent need for more objective standards.

 

[Abid]

The same expectations exist in many fields. My youngest son and I teach martial arts classes and people expect to be able to learn and master physical skills much more quickly than is possible. Granted, we are not at the mercy of the weather like flight training can be, but the challenges are similar. In any subject, and especially with physical skills, consistent practice is important. Apparently, some people do not understand that.

And, in the case you described, I would certainly not expect to be able to finish in two weeks, but I would not necessarily discount someone's ability to acquire physical skills simply based on age. It is a highly individual thing.

. Yes it is a highly individual thing but it is also completely accurate that most 70 year olds are among the individuals who take triple the time of a 40 year old. I don't understand why we in the US take that with such hesitation. The whole rest of the world knows it, accepts it and deals with it. But to your point 100% there are 40 year olds I gave up trying to train as well.

 

[Abid]

Exactly. Thus the apparent need for more objective standards.

Perhaps but people looking to cut corners, always find round abouts

 

[querist]

Perhaps but people looking to cut corners, always find round abouts

That is an entirely different problem, one that is much more difficult to correct.