Important aspects of flying (outside of passing the checkride) that a pilot should learn for PP.

[RussR]

Which ACS standard number requires the applicant to demonstrate a stall in a turn?

They're discussed for certain, which is what I said. But the discussion is theory that doesn't translate well to performance because it's still killing people.

Required? No. But the examiner is allowed to specify they be done in a turn (for both power on and power off), as shown by @TCABM. So if a CFI is not having the student learn to perform them in a turn, they are being clearly negligent in their instruction.

I just checked the Gleim syllabus as one example, and turning stalls are specifically trained on prior to solo.
As another example, the Sportys syllabus also trains on them, specifically saying "straight and turning".

 

[MauleSkinner]

Required? No. But the examiner is allowed to specify they be done in a turn (for both power on and power off), as shown by @TCABM. So if a CFI is not having the student learn to perform them in a turn, they are being clearly negligent in their instruction.

For comparison, the ACS also allows the examiner to specify short field operations with an obstacle, but when that topic comes up, note how many people here adamantly state that obstacles aren’t required.

 

[RussR]

Two weeks ago I had an instructor cancel an IR training flight because conditions were IFR.

I can't immediately condemn that instructor, it depends very much on where you are in the training program and the actual weather conditions.

I took instruments students into the clouds as much as possible, but on a sliding scale of progress vs conditions.

Once they could reasonably keep the plane straight and level, we'd get in the clouds on an MVFR day, or get a block of airspace so we can climb into the clouds. But not IMC where we'd have to fly an approach.

Once they were flying approaches, then we'd go into actual IMC where an approach would be needed to land.

Just about ready for the checkride and the weather is near minimums? Let's go.

Obviously icing and convective activity were a no-go.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Here are things that I think the system should extra emphasize to the private pilots. Extra emphasis would mean multiple times, using videos, articles, real examples of accidents, and actual flying. I think someone should write an article about these topics, which we (CFIs, this forum, AOPA, EAA...) can then recommend to all new pilots.
Please add yours if you'd like:

I've had entire threads about this recently, but I agree that there are some fairly big deficiencies to a lot of training.

1. Flying into IMC:
- Show student pilots what happens (and how quickly) if you fly into IMC (there are youtube videos).

Nothing like the real thing. Unfortunately, a lot of training is concentrated in areas like Arizona for exactly the reason that IMC is incredibly rare, and even the instructors in areas like that have little or no actual IMC.

- Ensure you get a weather briefing every single XC flight. Even if everything looks good, getting a second opinion from a briefer is better, and it only takes a few minutes.

Probably good early on, but unless LockMart's service (aka their employees' knowledge) has drastically improved, I'd be afraid that in marginal conditions they might get talked into going instead of not going.

- Emphasize that VFR at night has a higher risk of flying into IMC.

This is definitely on my list. IFR keeps you from hitting stuff, not just clouds and other planes, and most countries require IFR or a separate "night rating" for exactly this reason. IMO it's worth showing student pilots how to use obstacle departure procedures, IFR minimum altitudes, and even approach procedure routings and altitudes if the MEF is above pattern altitude. Looking at obstacles on the approach plate might help indicate whether a VFR traffic pattern or flying an IFR approach route would be the better idea at night. It's definitely something that is lacking in normal private pilot training.

2. How higher elevation airports affect plane ops:
- Must lean the engine for best performance (NA engines)
- How DA degrades climb performance of an NA engine

Yup. Before my private, I had only gone above maybe 3500 feet for cross countries, and even then never above 5500. It's worth going out heavy and climbing higher. You don't need hot weather to demonstrate degraded performance, just calculate what a bad DA might be in your area or in situations the student is interested in flying in, and take them to wherever that DA is on the day(s) you do the training.

3. Slow and uncoordinated flight in the pattern:
- Go over several scenarios, especially with strong crosswinds and base-to-final turns
4. Fuel burn goes by time and not distance. Have a reliable way to know your fuel burn, or be super conservative.

Good ideas.

5. Experience plane performance at gross weight and/or with aft CG, and emphasize how it gets worse over gross and at higher DAs

Yup. This all fits in with #2.

Those are all taught to student pilots. The only item that might not actually be experienced is flying the plane at max gross, but the effects and risks are taught.

Meh... Not very well, in most cases. They have to be talked about, but there's a difference between talking about them and seeing them in real life. Every person who crashed a plane in a high DA or overweight scenario learned about how not to do those things, but they likely had never seen those effects in real life.

#1 cause of fatal accidents is loss of control. Stalls in a turn and accelerated stalls are covered in private training but never experienced.

Huh? I had to do a turning stall on my private checkride. Granted, it was the first one I'd ever done...

VFR into IMC is #2. Again, talked about but never experienced for real.

And it's very difficult to get across just how dangerous this is. I remember my primary CFI talking about how the average life expectancy of a VFR pilot entering IMC is 90 seconds... But when we went into actual for the first time (yes, during training for my private, as I was ticking over 10 hours total time - I was an unusual student ), knowing I was in a left bank didn't keep me from instantly feeling like I was in a significant right bank. This is definitely something that should be experienced.

Force an unannounced CFI induced overnight grounding after arriving at a XC destination. Student gets to experience get-there-itis. Miss appointments, promises, etc., and subsequent risky decision making tendencies.

Probably unrealistic expectation for the CFI and company plane, but would hammer home something that is only ever discussed, never experienced until it happens. Unpopular for sure. Maybe drag it out for a couple hours, if not sleep in an FBO, lol.

Oooh. That's a good one. Let them get angry, feel like they "HAVE TO" get there, and then realize that the world will go on just fine and it's a whole lot better to get back tomorrow than never... And maybe make alternate plans, etc as part of it.

And then say, "OK, lesson is complete" and let them fly home after all, which should take care of the issues with rental planes getting back and such. Might have to surreptitiously extend the rental time beforehand.

A good causal analysis is required for each incident. If that is done and there is a systemic training related factor in some or all of the accident pilots with XYZ demographics, then training related corrective actions should be undertaken.

This is something that has really irked me about the NTSB since I first became a safety director and learned about root cause analysis.

It is REALLY easy for us all to read an NTSB report, get to the end where it says "The NTSB finds that the probable cause of this event was the pilot's failure to..." and then think "That's a dumb mistake, I'd never do that"... And it represents the NTSB not finishing the job, and a missed opportunity for the FAA to improve safety.

They really need to continue all the way down the rabbit hole. WHY did the pilot make that mistake? Was it a training issue, lack of proficiency, external pressures, etc? What influenced all of the above? What needs to be done to keep this from happening again?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Airline pilots do not compute W&B for every flight. So that's not why there are more GA accidents.

Somebody does a W&B for every airline flight. It may be the dispatcher or one of the pilots but I would be flabbergasted if there wasn't an official W&B done as part of the dispatch process.

The airlines absolutely do W&B for every flight. It's required by 14 CFR 121.693. Pilots may not be directly calculating W&B on paper, but there is absolutely a weight and balance calculation that occurs for every air carrier flight, be it by pilots or dispatchers, of course these days assisted by approved software programs.

The method by which W&B is calculated for air carriers is governed by their OpSpecs (A096 through A099) and approved ops manual, and in turn the size of airplane they're operating governs what OpSpecs will be approved by the FAA. And if you want to know more, I'll point you towards AC 120-27F.

Most pilots/instructors are so disinclined to fly in anything that could possibly result in VFR into IMC that experiencing it in training is probably not going to be a possibility for most, either.

Around here it seems like most only even do IFR practice on CAVU days.

Sad.

IMO, there are lots of opportunities available for full-time CFIs with different students at different stages of their training. Yeah, taking the person who is scheduled and is a brand new student who is still learning how to control the airplane by outside references into IMC is not going to be productive, but maybe that CFI has another student who is closer to checkride ready who hasn't experienced any actual yet, or an instrument student, that they could call to take a lesson as well and throw the new student in the back. This seems to be incredibly rare though.

So you have a problem you’d like somebody else to solve for you.

I charge $350/hr as a performance consultant. I could *probably* do the work as broadly outlined in about 100hrs. Learning object design is $85/hr for simple (.pdf/.ppt) objects; if you want web-based modules with highly interactive components and/or video, that’s $125/hr plus talent and production expenses; Content management and maintenance arrangements can be discussed and are largely dependent on your technical ability with a program such as articulate.

If you want training program supervision (that’s independent oversight) to audit whether a CFI or school is adhering to your program, that also runs $350/hr.

I bill in quarter hour increments.

I don't know where all that came from. It's not like the ACS was developed by $350/hr consultants?

That’s not VFR-into-IMC. That’s IFR.

... Which is what you should be doing to legally do VFR into IMC training. CFI files, gets a block of airspace with both VMC and IMC in it, and lets student fly "VFR" into IMC.

There was a well-known examiner in these parts who used to make that part of his private checkrides: "See that cloud? Fly into it." "OK, now fly back out of it." But that's a really bad example to set. It can be done legally and safely as I described above.

No, I don't see how accident reports support your claim.

Let me ask you this, I'm guessing so far you haven't had an accident related to:

Inadvertent flight into IMC
High DA operations
Stall/Spin in the traffic pattern

Have you been lucky so far or did you receive adequate training on the above?

The people who have died in these accidents might beg to differ.

For as long as I can remember the FAA and all GA organizations have advocated that inadvertent flight into IMC will KILL you. I can't believe there is any pilot that doesn't know this or at least heard this. Yet the accidents continue.

Aviation tends to attract people who are very much in control of all aspects of their lives, and think highly of themselves and their skills. Thus, they think they're the ones that will be able to make that 180 successfully, or just fly through it, or let their autopilot do it for them. "Type A personalities." I think the OP is right that actually experiencing this stuff would save a lot of lives.

When you say "commercial ops", do you mean part 121? If yes, then I understand where you're going, but I think you haven't thought it through. Part 121 (airlines) are safer that Part 91operations for a number of reasons including:

TAA with multiple redundant navigation and autopilots
Two pilots
Multiengine aircraft
Most flights (if not all) are IFR
Rigorous and approved policies and procedures
Recurrent Training in simulators
Line checks

If you were to try and incorporate the above in Part 91 operations it would cease to exist due to the financial costs alone. Who can afford a simulator session every six months?

Obviously there are things that exist in professional aviation that cannot feasibly exist in recreational aviation. But, there are a lot of things that professional aviation does that can be applied to recreational aviation as well, and could get the recreational side to be FAR safer. It won't be as safe as professional aviation, but I bet you could move part 91 recreational aviation 80% of the way towards 91 commercial/135 safety rates.

Looking at the above list - TAA with redundant navigation and autopilots. It's the autopilot that is the big one. 135 requires either a second pilot or a working 3-axis autopilot to do IFR with passengers. I'd bet that just a 2-axis with altitude hold would get most of the safety improvement, as it goes a long way toward reducing fatigue and allows the pilot to divert more attention to pressing tasks without as much risk of losing control or situational awareness. This is also why I'm more likely to use the autopilot more when my family is aboard, and save my hand-flying approaches to minimums for when it's only pilots aboard.

Two pilots is definitely super helpful, but IMO the most helpful part of this is catching each other's errors and oversights. There are ways to catch things yourself that can be built into your own procedures too, and this is something I'm working on for my own recreational flying.

Multiengine aircraft are not safer, at least in terms of standard point-a-to-point-b type flying. In both Part 135 and Part 91 corporate flying (ie, excluding recreational flying from the stats), single-engine and twin-engine piston as well as single-engine and twin-engine turbine operations have almost the same accident and fatality rates, with the singles actually ending up slightly safer in some cases. Pretty much for every fatality caused by an engine failure in a single, there's a loss of control on engine failure in a twin.

121 flights are all IFR. Most 135 flights are IFR, but VFR 135 has a flight tracking requirement. If you hold yourself to filing a flight plan and getting flight following when you're VFR, you're getting most of that safety.

Recurrent training in simulators is great, but if you get an IPC every 6 months instead of going with a safety pilot, you'll get some of the safety benefit. If you combine that with a BFR that includes emergency procedures and maneuvers you don't do in your day-to-day flying, you'll get most of the safety benefit. And go to a CFI who's worth what you pay them, not a pencil-whipper. There's your line check. Nothing says a flight review can only be done every other year.

I skipped over the "rigorous and approved policies and procedures" because I wanted to save the best for last. This is, IMO, the largest source of the difference in safety records between recreational and commercial aviation. Hell, it's the largest source of the difference between safety between 135 and 121 as well - If you look at 135 accidents, you'll find that almost without fail there are procedures that weren't being followed. When I was doing the study I mentioned above I was the director of safety for a 135 operator and reading those reports made me groan and think "Do we HAVE to be lumped in with these idiots?" Say "Bedford" to any professional corporate/135 pilot and you'll probably get a sigh and a roll of the eyes because that was one of the worst examples and a stain on the industry, but there's plenty of other things that a 135 operator with the wrong culture can get away with for at least a while before they crash.

Is it possible that GA flying is actually more dangerous?

When taken into consideration it’s not a bad accident rate. We are approximately about as safe as driving a motorcycle.

It's also not nearly as good as it could be.

My point was just that getting real IFR time pre-PPL isn't a given, as "real" IFR that isn't coupled with a no-go situation isn't exactly common.

After my last instrument training flight prior to my private checkride, my CFI turned to me and said, "Congratulations... You now have more actual than I did when I got my instrument rating."

It's not necessarily an easy thing to do, but it could be done without undue effort in many areas of the country if instructors just made the effort to do so. However, there's not much motivation to do so.

 

[idahoflier]

The people who have died in these accidents might beg to differ.

Please provide proof for your assertion that all of these types of accidents are due to inadequate training. Based on your assertion every NTSB report should include "The pilot received inadequate training" in the probable cause. I'm not disputing that inadequate training may be a factor in some minority of accidents but I think the number is small.

Aviation tends to attract people who are very much in control of all aspects of their lives, and think highly of themselves and their skills. Thus, they think they're the ones that will be able to make that 180 successfully, or just fly through it, or let their autopilot do it for them. "Type A personalities." I think the OP is right that actually experiencing this stuff would save a lot of lives.

How do these pilots experience "this stuff". Beyond a full motion sim where you can properly set up a problem like inadvertent VFR to IMC or a traffic pattern stall/spin I don't see how. Heck, except for CFI, spins haven't been in training syllabi for decades.

Two pilots is definitely super helpful, but IMO the most helpful part of this is catching each other's errors and oversights. There are ways to catch things yourself that can be built into your own procedures too, and this is something I'm working on for my own recreational flying.

Agree! It's called a checklist. The FAA and aviation alphabets have pushed checklists until they're blue in the face and I believe the use of checklists is in every PTS. And yet accidents occur because pilots won't use them.

Multiengine aircraft are not safer, at least in terms of standard point-a-to-point-b type flying. In both Part 135 and Part 91 corporate flying (ie, excluding recreational flying from the stats), single-engine and twin-engine piston as well as single-engine and twin-engine turbine operations have almost the same accident and fatality rates, with the singles actually ending up slightly safer in some cases. Pretty much for every fatality caused by an engine failure in a single, there's a loss of control on engine failure in a twin.

I think the vast majority of 121 carriers are flying high performance turbojet aircraft that have engine out performance that exceeds any piston twin and most turboprop twins. These are the type of aircraft I was referring to and I guess I should have been more specific...

121 flights are all IFR. Most 135 flights are IFR, but VFR 135 has a flight tracking requirement. If you hold yourself to filing a flight plan and getting flight following when you're VFR, you're getting most of that safety.

In the region of the country I fly it's not always possible to get flight following due to terrain. In any case the center can't see that cloud you're about to fly into and warn you or vector you around.

Recurrent training in simulators is great, but if you get an IPC every 6 months instead of going with a safety pilot, you'll get some of the safety benefit. If you combine that with a BFR that includes emergency procedures and maneuvers you don't do in your day-to-day flying, you'll get most of the safety benefit. And go to a CFI who's worth what you pay them, not a pencil-whipper. There's your line check. Nothing says a flight review can only be done every other year.

What about the VFR pilots? They're not going to perform an IPC, but they're the ones that need the training. I don't disagree with your premise regarding more frequent voluntary training and flying with a competent CFI. Prudent and safety minded pilots will do this. But I don't think they're the ones having the accidents.

However, there's not much motivation to do so.

I think increased safety and fewer accidents is a great goal, but I don't see how you get it without $ and more restrictive regulations and I don't think part 91 flyers would support that...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Please provide proof for your assertion that all of these types of accidents are due to inadequate training.

I never said that.

Based on your assertion every NTSB report should include "The pilot received inadequate training" in the probable cause. I'm not disputing that inadequate training may be a factor in some minority of accidents but I think the number is small.

I would say that inadequate training is a factor in nearly all those accidents. If you have truly been adequately trained, you won't have a base-to-final stall-spin because you'll be doing the things you need to do to prevent that.

How do these pilots experience "this stuff". Beyond a full motion sim where you can properly set up a problem like inadvertent VFR to IMC or a traffic pattern stall/spin I don't see how. Heck, except for CFI, spins haven't been in training syllabi for decades.

Take the student up to 10,000 feet. Tell them the airport is at 9,000 feet. Use the GPS in OBS mode to set up a virtual runway... Fly a base leg to it, preferably with a tailwind, tell them the standard "no more than 20/30 degrees of bank" and that you need to stay on the near side of that centerline because there's an airplane immediately ahead of you for the parallel runway... Spin it, recover, note altitude loss. Could be done as a simple demo by the CFI as well, I don't think this is one that the student needs to be on the controls for themselves, just seeing the amount of altitude the CFI burns up in the recovery should make it sufficiently memorable.

I don't think the student needs to demonstrate a spin recovery, and the FAA agrees which is why it hasn't been in the ACS/PTS for a really long time. They just need to see how impossible it is to recover from a low altitude spin, and the things that tend to lead to those low altitude spins.

VFR into IMC, I already gave an easy way to do. None of this requires a full motion sim.

Agree! It's called a checklist. The FAA and aviation alphabets have pushed checklists until they're blue in the face and I believe the use of checklists is in every PTS. And yet accidents occur because pilots won't use them.

Because GA checklists absolutely suck so people tend to quit using them after the checkride is done. It's a huge problem. If the FAA and the manufacturers would create real checklists of the quality seen on the higher end equipment, maybe this wouldn't be such a big problem.

In terms of catching errors, half the time the error correction is "Hey, did we run X checklist yet?" or "Would you like Y checklist now?" If you're creative, you can have a telltale item for each checklist so that you don't have to ask the FO those questions for example, and there are other ways of double-checking oneself to hopefully catch what a second pilot would catch.

In the region of the country I fly it's not always possible to get flight following due to terrain. In any case the center can't see that cloud you're about to fly into and warn you or vector you around.

Well, do what you can anyway. 135 doesn't require flight following in the sense we think of it, but "tracking" is required and basically means that someone is watching and will know as soon as possible whether an aircraft is missing or overdue and inform the appropriate authorities. The VFR flight plan takes care of that part, if you open it. Lowering the risk of a midair is the other part, and that doesn't have to be handled by getting flight following through ATC though that is the preferred method. When it's impossible, maybe you pull up a dedicated traffic page on your avionics or EFB instead. It's all about mitigating risk to the extent that is reasonably practicable.

What about the VFR pilots? They're not going to perform an IPC, but they're the ones that need the training. I don't disagree with your premise regarding more frequent voluntary training and flying with a competent CFI.

It doesn't necessarily need to be an IPC, you can simply do a "B"FR every 6 months or 1 year instead of as little as you can legally get away with.

Prudent and safety minded pilots will do this. But I don't think they're the ones having the accidents.

That right there is the hardest nut to crack in recreational aviation safety.

I think increased safety and fewer accidents is a great goal, but I don't see how you get it without $ and more restrictive regulations and I don't think part 91 flyers would support that...

There'll always be those who have more dollars than sense.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Ultimately it’s the pilots fault. We, as PIC, are the final authority on our qualifications and proficiency to be a safe PIC.

Checking standards are the minimum. Not the goal.

Some people never go beyond the minimum.

 

[MauleSkinner]

... Which is what you should be doing to legally do VFR into IMC training. CFI files, gets a block of airspace with both VMC and IMC in it, and lets student fly "VFR" into IMC.

Again, that only teaches the student to fly IFR. If you want to train anything resembling VFR into IMC, a you need to put them in the position where they can’t maintain VFR or inadvertently fly into IMC and then figure out what to do from there.

 

[TCABM]

…
I don't know where all that came from. It's not like the ACS was developed by $350/hr consultants?(

No, the ACS were orders of magnitude more expensive to develop.

All in, it took five years, three industry groups, one committee, two working groups, and change ls to the Code of Federal Regulations.

All in, there were 33 named organizations given attribution. If you don’t believe me, see pp12-13.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/events/WP/WP07/2016/WP0767847/acs_briefing.pdf

We’re not even talking about the OP engaging my services to re-write the ACS though. The proposal was to essentially create a Private Pilot syllabus and lessons plans to meet his specifications.

Apparently his problem isn’t important enough to him invest a minimal amount of money to create a flight training program that can be monetized. Essentially, he doesn’t want to put his money where his mouth is and that’s fine.

I do some work pro bono, but not that kind of work.

 

[rwellner98]

Two weeks ago I had an instructor cancel an IR training flight because conditions were IFR.

When I did my IFR, in Chicago, not only did the school fly IMC, but we had to deal with the very real possibility of picking up ice. The moment a single plane got any ice, the entire fleet had to return. But otherwise training continued. This was great. I was actually in a plane that picked up some ice during training. Years later the fact that I had that experience made the fact that I picked up ice a non-event and, rather than getting stressed or panicking, I simply turned around and headed to an alternate. Landed with about a silver dollar sized hole to peer through, got progressives and chilled out for the night at a nearby hotel.

 

[idahoflier]

I never said that.

Apologies for misinterpreting you. What did you mean when you said "The people who have died in these accidents might beg to differ."?

 

[MRC01]

Here are things that I think the system should extra emphasize to the private pilots ... Please add yours if you'd like:

Over the years I've thought about this. Several of mine overlap yours:

• Long x-country time: not just 50 nm but something like 300 to a location requiring planning & navigation skills. Do with both with, and without, electronic navaids like GPS or VOR.
• Night time: more than the 5 hours needed for PP.
• Tailwheel proficiency. Even if you don't fly them, learning to do so improves takeoffs, landings, ground handling in all airplanes.
• Complex and high performance: because, why not? Useful experience.
• Complex airspace: flying through class B (VFR transitions at a minimum), C and D. And, flying into a D or C without radio - waggle the wings and look for the green/red lights in the tower.
• Crossing an international border: filing EAPIS, customs, etc. - useful experience with regulations.
• Mountain and high DA flying: a whole 'nuther set of skills that's useful to learn even if you never need it. At a minimum, load a C-150 or C-172 to GW at high DA or a hot day.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The real problem I see is that in order to provide truly thorough instruction, the trainee needs to buy into the fact that it’s going to take a lot longer and cost a lot more money. Even the people I’ve heard over the years who say “cost is no object” complain about the cost and time.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Again, that only teaches the student to fly IFR. If you want to train anything resembling VFR into IMC, a you need to put them in the position where they can’t maintain VFR or inadvertently fly into IMC and then figure out what to do from there.

Ah OK, I see what you're saying. I'm talking more about "the leans" that new pilots tend to get upon entering a cloud, while it sounds to me like you're talking more about the decisionmaking process that happens in deteriorating weather. The latter is a good scenario to talk through, and I think if combined with the get-there-itis exercise you wouldn't need to go out on a barely-marginal-VFR kind of day to get the required lessons taught.

One issue with all of this stuff is that you have to be careful not to teach a student the opposite lesson! If we go out and scud run on a marginal day so that they can see how scary it can be, what if they think it's cool and "I survived that so it's an OK thing to do"? It's a situation where normalization of deviance will rear its ugly head.

I was actually in a plane that picked up some ice during training. Years later the fact that I had that experience made the fact that I picked up ice a non-event and, rather than getting stressed or panicking, I simply turned around and headed to an alternate.

I am *really* glad that I had an instructor aboard for my first icing encounter.

Apologies for misinterpreting you. What did you mean when you said "The people who have died in these accidents might beg to differ."?

That the existence of one person who hasn't yet had a stall-spin or those other accident types does not mean that training in general is not an issue. And while there may be some of those accidents with really well-trained pilots, how did those well-trained pilots still have those accidents?

Over the years I've thought about this. Several of mine overlap yours:

• Long x-country time: not just 50 nm but something like 300 to a location requiring planning & navigation skills. Do with both with, and without, electronic navaids like GPS or VOR.
• Night time: more than the 5 hours needed for PP.

Keep in mind that the Private is a license to learn. If you try to teach everyone everything, you'll price aviation right out of existence - It's already out of reach for the vast majority of Americans.

• Tailwheel proficiency. Even if you don't fly them, learning to do so improves takeoffs, landings, ground handling in all airplanes.
• Complex and high performance: because, why not? Useful experience.

Yes, but mostly useless if you're not flying those types of airplanes. There are plenty of pilots who never fly a tailwheel, complex, or HP plane... And if they changed their mind, they would be required to get instruction in those areas anyway.

• Complex airspace: flying through class B (VFR transitions at a minimum), C and D. And, flying into a D or C without radio - waggle the wings and look for the green/red lights in the tower.

I think radio failures are rare enough these days that the nordo thing is next to useless. Complex airspace is great if you have some reasonably nearby.

• Crossing an international border: filing EAPIS, customs, etc. - useful experience with regulations.

This is another thing that very few people do, and those that do tend to seek out the necessary information. The fact that you need things like eAPIS, some of the customs rules, flight plans, etc is worth talking about for a minute or two during private training so that the student knows they'll need to seek additional training, but I wouldn't give it more than that.

• Mountain and high DA flying: a whole 'nuther set of skills that's useful to learn even if you never need it. At a minimum, load a C-150 or C-172 to GW at high DA or a hot day.

This is absolutely wonderful training, and to this day the mountain flying course I did 15+ years ago is still some of the most fun as well as the best learning I've had in an airplane.

And I'd highly recommend it - But I wouldn't require it.

Requiring everything on your list would add many thousands of dollars to the already-high cost of training, likely even doubling it (or more). Doubling the cost will drop the number of people who complete successfully by an order of magnitude, for often little to no return. If someone is going to just fly around within about an hour of home in the midwest in a 172, there's no reason for them to be put through all that additional training.

 

[dmspilot]

Well for one the FAA needs to stop making things easier. There's no longer a student solo requiring a 100nm leg, there's no longer a complex aircraft requirement for Comm/CFI (everyone is already flying TAAs), there's the whole PDPIC thing, there's now a loophole around requiring 2-year CFIs to teach other CFIs...

 

[MauleSkinner]

Ah OK, I see what you're saying. I'm talking more about "the leans" that new pilots tend to get upon entering a cloud, while it sounds to me like you're talking more about the decisionmaking process that happens in deteriorating weather. The latter is a good scenario to talk through, and I think if combined with the get-there-itis exercise you wouldn't need to go out on a barely-marginal-VFR kind of day to get the required lessons taught.

Don’t forget about figuring out what frequencies to tune and who to contact and how to determine a safe altitude all while making the transition to IMC with bare minimum instrument flying skills. Which is why I think the FAA has an entirely backwards idea of how to train flight by reference to instruments at that level.

One issue with all of this stuff is that you have to be careful not to teach a student the opposite lesson! If we go out and scud run on a marginal day so that they can see how scary it can be, what if they think it's cool and "I survived that so it's an OK thing to do"? It's a situation where normalization of deviance will rear its ugly head.

You can apply that same logic to max gross weight and high density altitude operations, both in terms of how it’s trained and the possibility of negative training.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well for one the FAA needs to stop making things easier. There's no longer a student solo requiring a 100nm leg,

How long has it been since THAT was a thing? I trained 21 years ago and didn't have to do a 100nm leg.

there's no longer a complex aircraft requirement for Comm/CFI (everyone is already flying TAAs),

The insurance companies seem to have killed that off more so than the FAA. And the supply of beat up old Arrows and Cutlasses wasn't going to last forever.

there's the whole PDPIC thing,

You mean SIC PDP? IMO, that was a necessary improvement. It gives new pilots the ability to work in a multi-crew environment and learn about all the ways that multi crew improves things, without being in an SIC required situation. It also allows some operators to put pilots in a non-required SIC situation but log the time so that they can qualify for PIC later. It's valuable experience for someone to be in the right seat of a King Air or CJ next to an experienced mentor pilot, but it's not loggable unless it's a 135 pax leg or there's an SIC PDP.

there's now a loophole around requiring 2-year CFIs to teach other CFIs...

Wait, what?

 

[dmspilot]

You mean SIC PDP?

No, I mean commercial applicants no longer having to do the solo flight requirements solo.

Wait, what?

Yep, you can now qualify with a 4/5 pass rate or a special Part 141 program. It doesn't have to be 2 years anymore. It was part of the currency requirement revision effective Dec. 1.

 

[MRC01]

... Yes, but mostly useless if you're not flying those types of airplanes. There are plenty of pilots who never fly a tailwheel, complex, or HP plane... And if they changed their mind, they would be required to get instruction in those areas anyway.

I think you undervalue the skills that tailwheels require and how those skills improve one's technique (and consequently safety) in every other airplane they fly.

 

[midlifeflyer]

How long has it been since THAT was a thing? I trained 21 years ago and didn't have to do a 100nm leg.

It was before a major Part 61 rewrite that went into effect mid-1997.

One flight of at least 300 nautical miles with landings at a minimum of three points, one of which is at least 100 nautical miles from the original departure point.​

if you think that sounds a bit like the commercial cross country, you are right. Basically they shortened the private one and made some changes to the then existing commercial solo cross country to meet ICAO requirements.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

No, I mean commercial applicants no longer having to do the solo flight requirements solo.

Ah yes. I hate that, but that was also insurance driven, at least for the multis. I think that requirement can be done in a non-complex single these days, though, and in that case it's just dumb.

I think you undervalue the skills that tailwheels require and how those skills improve one's technique (and consequently safety) in every other airplane they fly.

No, that's one of the more useful bits you listed (and yes, I have my tailwheel and time in several different tailwheel types), but nobody's falling out of the sky because they fly their Cherokee with their feet flat on the floor. It certainly improves one's finesse on landings and coordination of turns, but the only thing I can see it making a really big safety impact on is loss of control on landings.

It was before a major Part 61 rewrite that went into effect mid-1997.

One flight of at least 300 nautical miles with landings at a minimum of three points, one of which is at least 100 nautical miles from the original departure point.​

OK, that's kind of what I figured. I knew there was as big rewrite not long before I started. Still, that was a long time ago! #old

 

[idahoflier]

Apologies for misinterpreting you. What did you mean when you said "The people who have died in these accidents might beg to differ."?

That the existence of one person who hasn't yet had a stall-spin or those other accident types does not mean that training in general is not an issue. And while there may be some of those accidents with really well-trained pilots, how did those well-trained pilots still have those accidents?

OK, so it would seem you ARE saying the class of accidents, or at least SOME of the accidents posted by the OP are result of inadequate training. You may be right. I don't think you are, but please provide some evidence to support this. That's what I was asking for in my post you quoted. So far I haven't seen any supporting evidence that training, or lack of training, is a cause for these accidents.

Also, FWIW, it's not ONE pilot, it's hundreds of thousands that haven't had these accidents.

 

[midlifeflyer]

OK, that's kind of what I figured. I knew there was as big rewrite not long before I started. Still, that was a long time ago! #old

Not at my age Heck I was even online discussing it,

 

[MRC01]

... No, that's one of the more useful bits you listed (and yes, I have my tailwheel and time in several different tailwheel types), but nobody's falling out of the sky because they fly their Cherokee with their feet flat on the floor. It certainly improves one's finesse on landings and coordination of turns, but the only thing I can see it making a really big safety impact on is loss of control on landings.

By reminding the pilot what the pedals are for, it also improves coordination especially in the pattern, which reduces the likelihood of a stall/spin on base to final. And improving control on landing is nothing to sneeze at, since that's where small mistakes turn into incidents and injuries.

 

[Pinecone]

What evidence can you provide to substantiate your argument? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I felt everything you cited above was adequately covered in my primary training.

Then why so many crashes due to those things?????

I have taught CFIs about number 3, in an aerobatic airplane so could take it into the stall/spin. Opened their eyes. They "knew" about it, but it was a book knowing. Having the plane do a half snap to the low wing got their attention. Then compared to a slipping turn nothing burger screw up.

 

[Pinecone]

Deliberately setting up a student to fail can drive a lesson home.

To me, the best instructors can let the student get deeper into trouble, while being perfectly safe for the instructor to recover if needed.

 

[SkyChaser]

By reminding the pilot what the pedals are for, it also improves coordination especially in the pattern, which reduces the likelihood of a stall/spin on base to final. And improving control on landing is nothing to sneeze at, since that's where small mistakes turn into incidents and injuries.

Wouldn't it just be more cost effective and simpler to just teach the pilot to utilize all flight controls in the plane he is doing most or all of his training in? If you have one available, sure, take him for a flight in a taildragger and have him shadow you on the controls so he can feel how much rudder is actually being used and how. It adds very little cost to the training process and should accomplish much the same thing. However, it is extremely possible to teach a student good footwork, coordination, and great control on landings without resorting to adding in a requirement that could add several hours and many dollars to the curriculum.

In my opinion, there is a certain lack of ownership in the recipients of poor flight instruction. You are bearing adult responsibilities when you are learning to fly, whether you are 14 or 44, and should be treating them with adult care. There are plenty of free resources available to cross-check your CFI and make sure that you are being taught correctly and that everything is being covered. Considering the stakes, you would think that more pilot-to-bes would be invested in ensuring they come out of training with the best knowledge base possible, even if their experience base is lacking - and you would have to live under a rock if you think GA is like getting into your car and driving to the grocery store and thus isn't worthy of that type of care.

When I was training, my CFI often commented on how nice it was that she never had to nag me about reading because I just did it without her even mentioning it to me and how it was simultaneously easier and harder to teach me because I came to every lesson knowing the abstract fundamentals of each skill she was going to teach me - which meant she had to stay on her toes, too. It shouldn't have made me special that I did that. Every pilot should be that invested in becoming a safe, reliable pilot, both before and after the checkride. It's your life and the lives of people you care about on the line. Act like it.

All that to say, there are definitely bad and mediocre instructors out there - but there are a lot of bad students out there, too, that don't make any effort except that directly prescribed by their instructor. If I had to pick one thing that I think would help with the accident rate, especially of lower time pilots, I would pick "training students to be Pilot in Command of their own learning experience". It is a lot harder to dismiss information that you yourself researched, and it would help students develop the skills they will need in their flying life after they pass the checkride.

 

[MRC01]

Wouldn't it just be more cost effective and simpler to just teach the pilot to utilize all flight controls in the plane he is doing most or all of his training in? If you have one available, sure, take him for a flight in a taildragger and have him shadow you on the controls so he can feel how much rudder is actually being used and how. It adds very little cost to the training process and should accomplish much the same thing. However, it is extremely possible to teach a student good footwork, coordination, and great control on landings without resorting to adding in a requirement that could add several hours and many dollars to the curriculum.

In theory yes, but in practice it's more effective for the student to fly an airplane that is less forgiving of poor technique. The way the airplane responds automatically and instantly reinforces what the CFI is saying. Sensing and maintaining coordination doesn't come from reading books or looking at instruments in the panel.

By analogy, consider learning to ride a bike. Learning to fly in a "nose dragger" is like learning to ride a bike with training wheels - you don't learn to balance and lean properly because the bike doesn't respond like it should. Training wheels make the bike so forgiving it stays upright even when the rider doesn't know how to balance and lean, and does it completely wrong.

In my opinion, there is a certain lack of ownership in the recipients of poor flight instruction. You are bearing adult responsibilities when you are learning to fly, whether you are 14 or 44, and should be treating them with adult care. There are plenty of free resources available to cross-check your CFI and make sure that you are being taught correctly and that everything is being covered.

Agreed

 

[MauleSkinner]

In my opinion, there is a certain lack of ownership in the recipients of poor flight instruction.

There’s a lack of ownership in the recipients of good flight instruction as well.

Take the taildragger example…a taildragger requires you to use rudder properly, but only requires it in a taildragger. A lot of people go back to nosedraggers and revert right back to poor rudder technique.

 

[TCABM]

By reminding the pilot what the pedals are for, it also improves coordination especially in the pattern, which reduces the likelihood of a stall/spin on base to final.

Cart before the horse. A spin cannot happen without a stall. Stalls are not caused by rudder inputs.

 

[Witmo]

Cart before the horse. A spin cannot happen without a stall. Stalls are not caused by rudder inputs.

Stomp on the rudder when you're at a high angle of attack and tell me what happens.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

OK, so it would seem you ARE saying the class of accidents, or at least SOME of the accidents posted by the OP are result of inadequate training. You may be right. I don't think you are, but please provide some evidence to support this. That's what I was asking for in my post you quoted. So far I haven't seen any supporting evidence that training, or lack of training, is a cause for these accidents.

Also, FWIW, it's not ONE pilot, it's hundreds of thousands that haven't had these accidents.

But also hundreds who have.

What do you think are the causes of those accidents, if not bad training?

 

[MauleSkinner]

But also hundreds who have.

What do you think are the causes of those accidents, if not bad training?

Not specifically picking on Matthew here, but it’s the one I could find. Regardless of quality of training, this implies that it’s acceptable (and even normal) to get worse after the checkride, not better.

The idea of training so that you peak at your checkride

 

[Rene]

Those are all taught to student pilots. The only item that might not actually be experienced is flying the plane at max gross, but the effects and risks are taught.

Train in a J3C-65 with full fuel, a picnic lunch, and a 200-ish pound CFI and you will experience flying near, if not at, max gross weight.

 

[Matthew]

Not specifically picking on Matthew here, but it’s the one I could find. Regardless of quality of training, this implies that it’s acceptable (and even normal) to get worse after the checkride, not better.

Not feeling picked on at all.

I’ve heard the saying (can’t remember the exact phrase), “you’re never better than on your checkride”.

It’s what you’re preparing for, practicing for, training for, and where you’re spending all your time and money.

I think I can get my e-logbook to show a graph of flights over time. It would be interesting see how it peaks towards checkrides and drops again afterward.

It may not be acceptable, but it’s probably normal. It’s hard to keep that kind of pace without the goal of a checkride.

I do think, at least in my case, that a steady pace of flying, even recreationally, made me improve. Fly for fun, but don’t let challenging conditions ground you. Pay close attention to your personal minimums but do what you can, when you can, to expand them. Challenge yourself to learn something new each flight and hold yourself to higher standards.

But all of that requires personal pride in what you do. It’s not called “a license to learn” for nothing.

 

[TCABM]

Not feeling picked on at all.

I’ve heard the saying (can’t remember the exact phrase), “you’re never better than on your checkride”.

….

It may not be acceptable, but it’s probably normal.

It’s absolutely normal. USAF Weapons School graduates will tell you the most tactically proficient they ever are is the last sortie of Mission Employment phase, which is the last phase of the course.

 

[AV8R_87]

Most important thing to take away is that it can happen to you. Fly good, don't suck, don't think you're invulnerable.

 

[idahoflier]

Then why so many crashes due to those things?????

I have taught CFIs about number 3, in an aerobatic airplane so could take it into the stall/spin. Opened their eyes. They "knew" about it, but it was a book knowing. Having the plane do a half snap to the low wing got their attention. Then compared to a slipping turn nothing burger screw up.

For traffic pattern stall/spin accidents I think situational awareness is lost due to task saturation. There can be many reasons for this, dealing with passengers, an issue with the aircraft, looking for traffic, etc. Once task saturation occurs the pilot isn't going to pick up the queues of an impending stall including any stall warning. The stall occurs, a wing drops and the natural impulse due to the surprise is to apply opposite aileron and then the spin starts resulting in the accident.

For inadvertent flight into IMC, high DA and fuel exhaustion accidents I think this is 100% poor ADM. I think the current PTS cover these topics and pilots are adequately trained and tested on how to avoid these accidents. Unfortunately some pilots will either ignore the training or make mistakes.

 

[idahoflier]

But also hundreds who have.

What do you think are the causes of those accidents, if not bad training?

Please see the above reply...