Not only this, but the situational awareness being provided. There is high SA, good. Low SA, bad. And bad SA, which is fatal. Bad SA being when you think you have high SA, but really none at all. Low SA is at least idenitifiable, and puts you on your toes.

Low experience, plus the barrage of info being provided through new technology is leading to bad SA and poor desicion making.

I agree completely. "Risk management" is nothing more than corporate buzz.

Attitudes are extremely difficult to change (1st generation CRM). Behavior is the target (6th generation). I can still have a poor attitude about something but have safe behavior. The assessments are tools that when used as intended work well. Unfortunately the part 91 typical GA training program focuses on mastering PTS standards but has little grounding in decision making, situational awareness, task priortization, workload management, etc. This was the whole point of FITS training being developed. Give students scenario based training instead of theoretical. IMO the FITS has limited success.

How about a mentoring program after you get a Private license. It would be like a learner's permit. You still would need to fly X number of hours every so often with a CFI. It is kind of like the student that calls you after they get their license and says, "hey, got this trip. Would you mind going along with me?" I had a student that bought a brand new Garmin 1000 Cessna 182 in 2008 with no flight experience at all. Even though he was not legally required to after he got his license, he asked me to fly with him on many long cross countries. We've taken that 182 from Ft Worth as far as SLC,DEN and LAS, in all weather conditions. He probably learned more during those trips than he did during his training! More importantly, it gave him an opportunity to use decision making skills under observation with corrective input --like an FO flying with an experienced captain---...Well, the NEXRAD data is 22 minutes old so would you really like to head that way? I believe some sort of mentoring would bring down the accident rate.

The problem with 'organized' risk assessment/management is that risk is dynamic, not static, and these assessments have the potential to lull some people into a false sense of security: "I did my risk assessment and we're good to go with the mission now".

I too have seen a degradation in stick & rudder skills as both civilian & military flight schools focus a lot of time and effort on aeronautical decision making, risk assessment, etc. Stuff that takes time away from real things.

Likewise, the move towards synthetic training devices has limited the opportunity to hone stick and rudder skills. Even full-motion, level D simulators will only ever be 1g and 2D vis (well, 3D vis may come one day, but it still won't be like real vision anytime in the foreseeable future). The 1g means you can't replicate sinks, slips, or skids and the 2D vis, no matter how photo-realistic, will never give you true depth perception or peripheral vision (although some of the fighter non-motion, 360-deg vis things do some of it). This means you're teaching guys to fly procedures and numbers - which gets you most of the way there, but will never make you a pilot.

You mean a BFR. At some point the 1000 hour PPL's experience trumps the wet behind the ears CFII.

As far as new equipment (G1000, etc), I'm all for getting someone in there who can show me how to best use the tools at hand.

I should have specified quals for the mentor in terms of hours/experience. Once you've achieved a certain amount of time you would be released from mentoring so the 1000hr PP would not apply. Many of the PP I see on BFRs are flying 30 hours a year. Loading all 6 relatives in the flying club PA32-300 on a 103 degree day in TX and going to the family reunion in Ruidoso at 6,920 MSL elevation. The let's go do some stalls and steep turns at 7am on a cool day with the two of us BFR won't help that guy. Getting him into a realistic situation will.

Such as a stall warning horn? :)

USMCFLYR[/QUOTE]

NO, he was referring to an AOA indicator for GA aircraft.

The problem we are having is the lack of basic stick and rudder skills. That goes beyond flying the airplane and encompasses basic ADM too.

40 years ago, aircraft with gyros weren't used until the student was ready for an instrument rating. Otherwise private pilots would learn on a bare to the bones, dead reckoning, Piper Cub.

Today, we are injecting crazy amounts of information and distractions into the private pilot cockpit that is giving them a false sense of security.

I feel that we need to get back to the "building block" approach to FT.

SEE posts 5 and 6 in this thread

40 years ago, aircraft with gyros weren't used until the student was ready for an instrument rating. Otherwise private pilots would learn on a bare to [/QUOTE]

Solo a glider, then move on to the powered plane syllabus. Done this way at the USAFA, with Israeli Air Force, and most of the commonwealth air forces (via a robust cadet training scheme). It's a cheaper way to learn the basics, and builds outstanding habit patterns WRT external scan, energy management, and rudder coordination.

I don't know where Businessweek is getting their information from but, the 2011 Nall report shows a steady decline and a 17% decrease in GA accidents since 2001. Just look at page three:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications...ll-summary.pdf