How to make the best pilot possible?

jackparrish

jackparrish

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Oct 6, 2024
Messages
10
Display Name
Display name:
Jack Parrish
I have been pondering a question for a while now..
How could one make the best pilot possible with a fixed amount of flight time?

The idea is contrary to the modern fast track flight training with the goal of punching tickets.
In a perfect world, this is the way that all flight schools would approach training.

Lets say you have 50 hrs of flight time to make the best pilot you possibly can out of a complete novice, what do you do with those 50 hrs?
I have thoughts about incorporating tailwheel and glider and stall/spin prevention training, but want to hear what the people think!

Jack
 
I recently had a student that wanted to fly a bit while saving up money to fully complete his PP certificate.
As a result he would call me up and say can we do a 30 minute lesson, about every two weeks.
He is a sharp student and had his knowledge test completed by the 7 hour mark. He was basically ready to solo at about 7 hours (14 lessons) also.
Now I would help do what I could to get as much flying as possible out of each lesson as we could. Things like, "let me taxi while you finish your checklist and set the radios."
Seemed a bit like shortcutting things, but in about 7 hours of flying we had done it twice as many time as we would with 7 one hour lessons. I think I made him go to about 12-15 hours before I soloed him, but we started working on ATC, and navigation while I got comfortable with the idea that he would consistently be able to solo (he also started flying about 3 times a week and longer lessons before I soloed him).

Interestingly this sort of mirrored my experience 30+ years ago when I was learning to fly off pizza delivery tips and would say I can only afford a 30 or 45 minute lesson. I soloed in about 5 hours. (at a sleepy airport with no other traffic)
I am sure these short lessons wouldn't work for everyone or every location. The short lessons do mean you tend to focus on one specific Maneuver or concept with each lesson.
But I am considering doing them a bit more for students that are more concerned about cost, than calendar time of getting finished.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Incorporate personal minimums.
Focus on biggest pilot killers (weather, cross-wind, pattern stalls, W&B, fuel...).
Pretty simple concepts, but lots of scenarios.
 
Fly tach hours instead of hobbs, use the shortest possible taxi time, and use incorporate some type of sim as a procedural trainer for navigation, systems, and various failure modes.

Fly every 4-6 times a week, morning, noon, or night and experience the various weather conditions that drive ADM. If it’s so crappy it’s unsafe, step to the sim and do procedural stuff.
 
First decide what you think a "Best Pilot" is. Do you want to be the best 'Airline', 'Bush', 'Corporate' or 'Fly Around The Patch and go to Fly-ins' Pilot?

Quite often once you buy an aircraft and travel a little then you become the $100 hamburger pilot. If you have Professional Pilot aspirations then focus on IFR operations.
 
Begin by looking deep on the inside and making sure it's in the best condition possible ...
 
jackparrish said:
I have been pondering a question for a while now..
How could one make the best pilot possible with a fixed amount of flight time?

The idea is contrary to the modern fast track flight training with the goal of punching tickets.
In a perfect world, this is the way that all flight schools would approach training.

Lets say you have 50 hrs of flight time to make the best pilot you possibly can out of a complete novice, what do you do with those 50 hrs?
I have thoughts about incorporating tailwheel and glider and stall/spin prevention training, but want to hear what the people think!

Jack
Click to expand...
Have you trained any primary pilots?
 
Klaus M said:
First decide what you think a "Best Pilot" is. Do you want to be the best 'Airline', 'Bush', 'Corporate' or 'Fly Around The Patch and go to Fly-ins' Pilot?
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

The best training approach is (or should be) very different for a guy who wants to fly to far places with the instruments humming and the guy who wants to drop into grass fields and maybe do a bit of acro.
 
It isn’t a matter of making the best pilots, but rather FINDING the CORRECT people to train.

That’s gonna involve ruthlessly eliminating those that don’t measure up. No participation trophies…

I’ve often said it isn’t that I’m an amazing pilot because I made it through Navy flight school. But that IS an indication at how able I was at learning how they teach.

If ya want this to be efficient, make the man fit the uniform, not the uniform fit the man…
 
Tools said:
It isn’t a matter of making the best pilots, but rather FINDING the CORRECT people to train.

That’s gonna involve ruthlessly eliminating those that don’t measure up. No participation trophies…

I’ve often said it isn’t that I’m an amazing pilot because I made it through Navy flight school. But that IS an indication at how able I was at learning how they teach.

If ya want this to be efficient, make the man fit the uniform, not the uniform fit the man…
Click to expand...
Just one example, I've seen students get lost flying in a straight line over familiar terrain. Oh yeah a 400 hour YouTuber pilot did that too.

Some just don't have the natural instinct pilots should have. It can be trained into them but it will take time, money, and an above average instructor.
 
Have them fly in as many different planes in as many different weather conditions and situations as possible. You can’t teach someone everything in just 50 hours so your goal should be to expose them to as much as possible so they develop good decision making, understand what is normal vs what is risky, and know when they need to come back for more instruction. Droning around the local practice area for 50 hours in the same plane only teaches them how to do just that. Getting them comfortable with how to fly regardless of the type of airplane and how to deal with different types of traffic, flight obstacles, and weather will make them far safer in the long run.
 
If I was wanting to teach to highest quality pilots I could given only 50 hours, my first consideration would be the training environment, not a non-standard program with gliders and tail wheel aircraft.
 
I’m not suggesting this is the right way at all but…the way I learned. I had been enthralled with airplanes since I was a little kid, by my teens I was wanting to build airplanes of my own design and studied obsessively, I also had side interests in restoring antique cars and could pull a 1950’s car’s engine, rebuild it, put it back into the car and drive it again in one day. (Engine leaning, carb heat, basically engine management was a non issue, flight dynamics was a non issue). it was not until I was in my early thirties that I reached a point in life I could say “nows the time” and took a payed in cash ground school course through a “flight school” program and passed the written. Life got busy and 4 years latter I finally had free time available again to do the flying part. I searched and finally found an older private instructor who would teach primary in a tail wheel (aeronca champ). It took a few sit down over coffee conversations, and some sit down and get grilled with questions conversations before we made a handshake deal on the way I wanted to learn. The agreement reach was “I want you to make sure I don’t kill myself trying to fly, I’ve studied the physics, I’ve been trained in the regulations, but I want to learn like the first pioneers of aviation did, apply what I know of the physics into action and try to develop the instinctual reaction to flying in the same way a person can instinctively ride a bicycle, I don’t want to think about what I’m doing I just want it to be a natural reaction, I ask that you only keep me from hurting/killing myself, I don’t care how many hours it takes” it took 48 hours of flight time for him to sign me off on solo, he gave me my tail wheel endorsement, and ask me what my schedule looked like so I could burn off my token solo time so he could call and schedule my check ride all at the same time. There was one base to final turn towards the end on a gusting turbulent day that he saved my life, and one demonstration at around the 30th landing that he offered a suggestion for feeling the three point landing. Other than that I was given only orders of what was to be done, be it turn on point, cross country navigating to another airport, chandels (that was tricky), it worked for me. It doesn’t fit with modern syllabus’s but there is something to be said about after they’ve been taught the basic principles letting them learn by experience, don’t let them get in over their head, but let them get close enough it gives them an adrenaline rush and they remember it forever/really enforcing the days lesson.
 
Tools said:
It isn’t a matter of making the best pilots, but rather FINDING the CORRECT people to train.

That’s gonna involve ruthlessly eliminating those that don’t measure up. No participation trophies…

I’ve often said it isn’t that I’m an amazing pilot because I made it through Navy flight school. But that IS an indication at how able I was at learning how they teach.

If ya want this to be efficient, make the man fit the uniform, not the uniform fit the man…
Click to expand...
If I have the history right, that was basically Omar Bradley's plan for leadership. If you want the best people for the job, put the best people in the job. Soft spoken guy for a general, but who I think fired more generals than anyone else. Harsh maybe, but considering the importance level of what he was doing it made sense.

But at the same time, with flying, if *I* could learn how to fly, I think most anyone can. I don't say that out of false modesty, I'm not the most coordinated person in the world by nature.

Back to OP's question, I'm going to paraphrase another smart guy for that. If you want to coach/teach someone, you're kidding yourself if you think the same plan is going to work on everybody. That was Bear Bryant, and his theory was that you have to work with what you've got, and that's going to mean a different plan for different people. If you think one plan will fit for everyone, then you've got to back to the Tools/Bradley plan, and find the people to suit your program. Either way, no plan is perfect for everyone.
 
Clip4 said:
If I was wanting to teach to highest quality pilots I could given only 50 hours, my first consideration would be the training environment, not a non-standard program with gliders and tail wheel aircraft.
Click to expand...
The airplane is a key factor in the environment, though. I think there's still an argument for a simpler basic trainer for the first 10 hours. I've seen plenty of students trying to decipher everything in front of them for the first 10 hours and not learning the fundamentals of aircraft control as well as they should have.
 
Flatiowa said:
I’m not suggesting this is the right way at all but…the way I learned. I had been enthralled with airplanes since I was a little kid, by my teens I was wanting to build airplanes of my own design and studied obsessively, I also had side interests in restoring antique cars and could pull a 1950’s car’s engine, rebuild it, put it back into the car and drive it again in one day. (Engine leaning, carb heat, basically engine management was a non issue, flight dynamics was a non issue). it was not until I was in my early thirties that I reached a point in life I could say “nows the time” and took a payed in cash ground school course through a “flight school” program and passed the written. Life got busy and 4 years latter I finally had free time available again to do the flying part. I searched and finally found an older private instructor who would teach primary in a tail wheel (aeronca champ). It took a few sit down over coffee conversations, and some sit down and get grilled with questions conversations before we made a handshake deal on the way I wanted to learn. The agreement reach was “I want you to make sure I don’t kill myself trying to fly, I’ve studied the physics, I’ve been trained in the regulations, but I want to learn like the first pioneers of aviation did, apply what I know of the physics into action and try to develop the instinctual reaction to flying in the same way a person can instinctively ride a bicycle, I don’t want to think about what I’m doing I just want it to be a natural reaction, I ask that you only keep me from hurting/killing myself, I don’t care how many hours it takes” it took 48 hours of flight time for him to sign me off on solo, he gave me my tail wheel endorsement, and ask me what my schedule looked like so I could burn off my token solo time so he could call and schedule my check ride all at the same time. There was one base to final turn towards the end on a gusting turbulent day that he saved my life, and one demonstration at around the 30th landing that he offered a suggestion for feeling the three point landing. Other than that I was given only orders of what was to be done, be it turn on point, cross country navigating to another airport, chandels (that was tricky), it worked for me. It doesn’t fit with modern syllabus’s but there is something to be said about after they’ve been taught the basic principles letting them learn by experience, don’t let them get in over their head, but let them get close enough it gives them an adrenaline rush and they remember it forever/really enforcing the days lesson.
Click to expand...

I took a somewhat similar approach, though not quite as extreme in telling the instructor the plan. We started off fairly normal, but as I had been geeking out about aviation and flight training for a while since I couldn't afford to fly, by the time I could afford it, well, there weren't many surprises by the time I got in the airplane. And after my CFI got to know me a bit, I'd come to the airport and he'd ask me "What are we doing today?" I soloed at 16.something and took my checkride at 42.6.

But, the key to it all was learning things on the ground first. However that happens, it's the key to success in the fewest flight hours possible.
 
jackparrish said:
I have been pondering a question for a while now..
How could one make the best pilot possible with a fixed amount of flight time?

The idea is contrary to the modern fast track flight training with the goal of punching tickets.
In a perfect world, this is the way that all flight schools would approach training.

Lets say you have 50 hrs of flight time to make the best pilot you possibly can out of a complete novice, what do you do with those 50 hrs?
I have thoughts about incorporating tailwheel and glider and stall/spin prevention training, but want to hear what the people think!

Jack
Click to expand...
Do you have averages for student hours at checkride for your school? I'm personally of the opinion that 50 hours is probably only reasonable for full-time students between 17-30.
 
Spend some extra time screening the students you choose to teach..
 
Last edited:
Let the student f up. Seriously, once things have been explained and there is some degree of competence, sit back and let the mistake happen, within reason of course. Some of the best lessons learned happen when the student has to deal the result of doing something wrong, at least in my case.
 
Tools said:
It isn’t a matter of making the best pilots, but rather FINDING the CORRECT people to train.

That’s gonna involve ruthlessly eliminating those that don’t measure up. No participation trophies…

I’ve often said it isn’t that I’m an amazing pilot because I made it through Navy flight school. But that IS an indication at how able I was at learning how they teach.

If ya want this to be efficient, make the man fit the uniform, not the uniform fit the man…
Click to expand...
100% this. Select the man.

"Lt, are you ready for your flight check?"
"Sir, what is this thing you call ready?"
"Good, see you tomorrow at 08:00. It's with the commander"

PASS, or WASHOUT.
40+ years later the red checklists still are in my head. The candidate has to live eat and breathe the program.

My last MEI candidate took a phone call in a 45 degree banked turn at 3500 ft. I "discontinued" him.
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
Do you have averages for student hours at checkride for your school? I'm personally of the opinion that 50 hours is probably only reasonable for full-time students between 17-30.
Click to expand...
I recall from many years ago that the British Gliding Association put numbers to it…if you were age 20 or younger, it would take 20 flights to solo. For every year of your age above age 20, you add one flight.

As we age, we learn more slowly. The last type rating I got when I was in my early 50s was an entirely different experience than the previous one ten years prior. The fastest learners I ever had were teenagers.

But at whatever age, a learner has to be motivated…I had a teenage student years ago who was taking lessons because his dad wanted him to be a pilot. Almost no progress from one lesson to the next.
 
RyanShort1 said:
The airplane is a key factor in the environment, though. I think there's still an argument for a simpler basic trainer for the first 10 hours. I've seen plenty of students trying to decipher everything in front of them for the first 10 hours and not learning the fundamentals of aircraft control as well as they should have.
Click to expand...

While I agree simpler is better, but part of the environment is how well the plane is maintained and having a maintenance staff that completes the inspections and repairs quickly so students aren’t flying because the planes aren’t flying is quite important.

A full service line staff, highly experienced instructors, multiple runways so Xwind components aren’t keeping students on the ground, briefing areas, classrooms, exam rooms for practical tests, an adequate number of computers are part of the training environment and what I would want if I am trying to put 50 hour private pilots out the door.
 
Last edited:
After 60+ years not much has changed, pilots are still dead from the same mistakes made then and now. Flight training books got bigger, FAA regulations increased, pilot knowledge and skill level much much better. "How could one make the best pilot possible with a fixed amount of flight time?" I am not sure anything can be done that has not, hopefully your CFI will instill some common sense in everything that's required now.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Have you trained any primary pilots?
Click to expand...
Yes I own a flight school, just brainstorming ways to continue improving our various training programs outside the standard answers.

Some ideas that we are already implementing are pre-solo stall/spin prevention, recurrent spin training for the CFI's, we have incorporated 10 hrs of glider into our career program starting this November (very excited about this and the energy management, speeds to fly, etc students will learn), and we are planning to add 10 hrs of tailwheel to the career program as well.

All of these things can be substituted into the training footprint without increasing cost or hours required by the student.

We also started to strongly encourage our students to join groups like the local IAC and SSA chapters, and we host FAAST presentations at the school.

Definitely agree with much of what has been said above, the student must be motivated and frequency of training/quality of instruction is very important.
 
kmacht said:
Have them fly in as many different planes in as many different weather conditions and situations as possible. You can’t teach someone everything in just 50 hours so your goal should be to expose them to as much as possible so they develop good decision making, understand what is normal vs what is risky, and know when they need to come back for more instruction. Droning around the local practice area for 50 hours in the same plane only teaches them how to do just that. Getting them comfortable with how to fly regardless of the type of airplane and how to deal with different types of traffic, flight obstacles, and weather will make them far safer in the long run.
Click to expand...
I think this is a very good point.

The training industry has a STRONG emphasis on simplification/standardization which has been driven in part by career programs trying to mitigate learning barriers. This is good.. however I believe this is overdone when people say that a few hrs out of 250+ in a different aircraft/environment will negatively impact the learning process.

A balance of the two is probably the answer, large phases of consistency (such as pre-solo) with small phases of variance as well.

At the end of the day the skill of a pilot is less likely to be the cause of an accident than decision-making/human error. The best way to improve decision-making is to be exposed to new airplanes, environments, and situations.
 
PaulS said:
Let the student f up. Seriously, once things have been explained and there is some degree of competence, sit back and let the mistake happen, within reason of course. Some of the best lessons learned happen when the student has to deal the result of doing something wrong, at least in my case.
Click to expand...
100% agree. The role of a CFI is to let the students fail until they don't anymore.. safely.
 
jackparrish said:
Yes I own a flight school, just brainstorming ways to continue improving our various training programs outside the standard answers.

Some ideas that we are already implementing are pre-solo stall/spin prevention, recurrent spin training for the CFI's, we have incorporated 10 hrs of glider into our career program starting this November (very excited about this and the energy management, speeds to fly, etc students will learn), and we are planning to add 10 hrs of tailwheel to the career program as well.

All of these things can be substituted into the training footprint without increasing cost or hours required by the student.

We also started to strongly encourage our students to join groups like the local IAC and SSA chapters, and we host FAAST presentations at the school.

Definitely agree with much of what has been said above, the student must be motivated and frequency of training/quality of instruction is very important.
Click to expand...

So are you excluding the glider and tail wheel time from the 50 flight hours to specified in a private course or is this +50 hours of additional training? Unless you are training bush or Ag pilots, the tail wheel time isn’t useful in a career program.

Pre-solo stall and spin prevention? This is a 61.87(d)(10) requirement - how were you doing this before?

(10) Stall entries from various flight attitudes and power combinations with recovery initiated at the first indication of a stall, and recovery from a full stall;
 
Last edited:
Teach students how to keep the airplane perfectly straight during takeoff and landing and there will be no need for tailwheel time. It's way overfetishized.

Can't say how much glider time will help since I've never flown a glider. I have flown with two pilots who started in gliders though, and their skills were not impressive.
 
Tools said:
It isn’t a matter of making the best pilots, but rather FINDING the CORRECT people to train.

That’s gonna involve ruthlessly eliminating those that don’t measure up. No participation trophies…

I’ve often said it isn’t that I’m an amazing pilot because I made it through Navy flight school. But that IS an indication at how able I was at learning how they teach.

If ya want this to be efficient, make the man fit the uniform, not the uniform fit
Click to expand...
dmspilot said:
Teach students how to keep the airplane perfectly straight during takeoff and landing and there will be no need for tailwheel time. It's way overfetishized.

Can't say how much glider time will help since I've never flown a glider. I have flown with two pilots who started in gliders though, and their skills were not impressive.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree. "No need" is antithetical to this topic of making the best pilot possible. It is not necessary but it does contribute to the goal of "better". It makes you better with maintaining longitudinal alignment with the runway, coordination, and better at crosswind correction. If the goal is better, tailwheel is a great thing to do. A tricycle gear airplane is just too forgiving to adequately highlight deficiencies to the same degree on takeoff & landing.

In my personal experience, gliders made me a better pilot than probably anything else I've done. They demand from the pilot a precision of flight that is not seen anywhere except in aerobatic competition.
 
I strongly agree with tailwheel making better pilots. A pilot who gets proficient in doing “one wheel” landings in strong variable cross wind landings will absolutely be a better skilled pilot than someone who has never had to learn to do it. It’s only my opinion with no data facts to back it up, but I believe strongly it is true

Edit: it took me a long time to learn how to do it correctly. I’m linking a video of the technique to show what I’m trying to explain to those without tailwheel training. It is hard to learn to do it correctly.

 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
So are you excluding the glider and tail wheel time from the 50 flight hours to specified in a private course or is this +50 hours of additional training? Unless you are training bush or Ag pilots, the tail wheel time isn’t useful in a career program.

Pre-solo stall and spin prevention? This is a 61.87(d)(10) requirement - how were you doing this before?

(10) Stall entries from various flight attitudes and power combinations with recovery initiated at the first indication of a stall, and recovery from a full stall;
Click to expand...
50 hrs was for the sake of the thought experiment.
At our school we are including 5 hrs of glider and tailwheel in our Private program, and another 5 hrs of each in Commercial.

I hear you, I should clarify that when I say pre-solo stall/spin prevention I mean a much more intentional training than the 61.87 requirements. I mean a ground lesson that goes into much more detail with aerodynamics, NTSB data, AC 61-67, FAA-RD-77-26, unintentional stall/spin upset videos, etc.

Our flight includes dutch rolls, falling leaf, slow flight with very intentional distractions from the CFI, power-on/off stalls with distractions, cross-controlled and trim stalls, accelerated stalls from 0° for a baseline, and then 30, 45, and 60 marking the speed of the stall against pre-calculated stall speeds for the various loads, and incipient spin recoveries. The focus of the talk and flight is prevention.
 
dmspilot said:
Teach students how to keep the airplane perfectly straight during takeoff and landing and there will be no need for tailwheel time. It's way overfetishized.
Click to expand...
jackparrish said:
I strongly disagree. "No need" is antithetical to this topic of making the best pilot possible. It is not necessary but it does contribute to the goal of "better". It makes you better with maintaining longitudinal alignment with the runway, coordination, and better at crosswind correction. If the goal is better, tailwheel is a great thing to do. A tricycle gear airplane is just too forgiving to adequately highlight deficiencies to the same degree on takeoff & landing.
Click to expand...
As a tailwheel guy, I agree with @dmspilot…a pilot can be taught to properly land in a nose wheel airplane. The instructor “simply” has to not allow anything else.

The advantage of a tailwheel airplane is that it makes up for laziness in the instructor.
 
jackparrish said:
At the end of the day the skill of a pilot is less likely to be the cause of an accident than decision-making/human error. The best way to improve decision-making is to be exposed to new airplanes, environments, and situations.
Click to expand...
I think that this could be argued both ways. I would guess if we dug a bit, we'd find that there have been some dumb, dumb decisions that skilled pilots have flown themselves out of. Maybe you boxed yourself into a stupid corner, or chose to fly an airplane that maybe you should've left on the ground, but a certain level of precision, skill, and perhaps technical knowledge allowed you to walk away from it. I would argue, for instance, that most stall-spin incidents aren't purely a matter of bad judgment, but a lack of skill, precision, and attention to detail. The same likely goes for most landing accidents.
I personally think that some of the the recent PTS to ACS changes have exchanged some of that skill for decision making, when in reality, both complement each other. I think also that it's easy to say that we've taught good decision making in our little 40-60 hour courses, but a lot of good decisions are caught rather than taught.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
As a tailwheel guy, I agree with @dmspilot…a pilot can be taught to properly land in a nose wheel airplane. The instructor “simply” has to not allow anything else.
Click to expand...
This is true. I don't let Cessna 150 pilots or Piper Tri-Pacer pilots fly sloppy as a few of my students could tell you, but the common denominator is usually an instructor that has a tailwheel background or higher than average standards. A certain percentage of the student population is going to be just as lazy as they can get away with, and I personally think that that percentage is fairly high. Raising the bar forces their hand.
The advantage of a tailwheel airplane is that it makes up for laziness in the instructor.
Click to expand...
But there are a LOT of lazy instructors out there turning out very mediocre students from the sample I've flown with.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top