Bob Miller's Thoughts on Changes to Aeronautical Experience

[KennyFlys]

I've been reading through Bob Miller's last "Over the Airwaves" issue. He makes some interesting proposals and with good reason. Last week, I attended an FAAST/ASF safety seminar titled, "Five Mistakes Pilots Make."

They are with percentages of all fatalities:

1. Maneuvering flight (33.9&)
2. Takeoff & Departure (15.3%)
3. Approach & Landing (12.7%)
4. Weather (13.6%)
5. Fuel Management (3.4%)

Miller's statements refer to Number 4, particularly when it comes to VFR flight into IMC, something I came to know firsthand some twenty years ago.

My own experience convinced me three hours under the hood is by no means sufficient for a private pilot certificate. I'm also in favor of at six to eight hours with part of it at least two, long cross-country legs. Add another two to three hours in actual instrument conditions. Currently, not even an instrument rating requires actual instrument experience.

A few weeks ago, I spoke with a senior instructor with one of the largest schools in the country. He has over 1,200 hours total time but only .7 actual and he admitted that wasn't even more than losing contact with the ground for a period of time. I gained just 4.7 hours during my instrument training and struggled for more. An hour of it came from my bailing on work to make a second flight that afternoon for more experience.

I don't agree with quite as tight of requirements but I see no problem with making changes along these lines. I think the Flight Review without consistent experience would be a good idea. The school I'll be working for requires an annual Flight Review for all renters not currently active in flight training. They are also pretty strict on recurrent training for instructor pilots.

First, let's stop publishing the answers to FAA knowledge tests. While NAFI (National Association of Flight Instructors) lobbied hard to have the FAA publish the answers to their knowledge tests, such action encourages rating candidates to simply memorize the answers.​

Second, we must make the Private and Instrument Pilot Knowledge tests relevant to 21st century flight. Let's include questions on realistic aeronautical decision making (ADM) and actual flight scenarios. At last look, there were more questions pertaining to ADFs than GPS on the private pilot knowledge test. You can fail all weather related questions on the instrument pilot knowledge test and still pass. Who's minding the store here?​

Third, the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) should be tightened to allow a tolerance of no more than +/- 100 feet in straight and level flight instead of the current +/- 200 feet. If a pilot candidate cannot maintain this higher standard, something is desperately wrong with either his instruction or his skills.​

Fourth, the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) should require a minimum of 3 hours of flight in actual instrument conditions instead of simulated conditions as are now prescribed. Similarly, at least 10 hours of actual instrument flight should be required for the instrument rating. These changes address the fact that continued VFR flight into IFR conditions is the number one weather-related cause of all fatal accidents. Students need to see first-hand the challenges of flying solely by reference to instruments. Simulated instrument conditions are as phony as $3.00 bills.​

Fifth, no person should be issued a CFI certificate until he or she has logged a minimum of 500 PIC hours. The teaching principle known as primacy of learning suggests that what we learn first lasts longest. Using inexperienced pilots to teach new pilots affords new meaning to this principle.​

Sixth, no CFI-I certificate should be granted to any candidate who has not logged a minimum of 50 PIC hours in actual IFR conditions. Primacy of learning principle applies here as well.​

Seventh, an annual flight review should be required for all pilots logging less than 100 PIC hours in the previous 12 months.​

On the first, I wasn't aware the FAA published answers. I have the question banks but thought they will not publish their answers. If they are, I'd favor not publishing answers.

Second: Yes, add more with regard to weather services use; particularly reading reports and graphics.

Third: I think fifty feet should be plenty.

Fourth: I spoke to this earlier.

Fifth: I don't know that 500 hour PIC is doable but certainly more cross country time WITHOUT the use of GPS would be a good idea. Significant time working with ATC would be a good idea. The senior instructor who hired me said he has instructors who fear going into Class B or any towered airport. I'm puzzled by that one.

Sixth: More actual instrument time for a CFII is not a bad idea. It's hard to find those days in some areas and near impossible in some areas of the country. But, were it required there would be an excellent opportunity for schools in a few key areas to assist in building that experience.

Seventh: I think this is an excellent idea.

Okay, so it's thrown out there for ya... Any thoughts?

BTW, he finishes with this line...

Don't worry . . . . raising the bar will never happen!

And, he's right.

 

[Don Jones]

On the first, I wasn't aware the FAA published answers. I have the question banks but thought they will not publish their answers. If they are, I'd favor not publishing answers.

I don't think this would not matter, with Gleim, King and others producing test prep software, it would only cause them more work to generate their own answers. It would still be available. Maybe if they didn't release the actual question bank at all. I for one don't feel the knowledge test serves much purpose. The oral is where a students actual knowledge is tested.

Second: Yes, add more with regard to weather services use; particularly reading reports and graphics.

I do think the exams should be brought up to todays standards, and more attention should be given to weather related material. I don't think ADF questions should go away, but GPS should be covered in far greater detail.

Third: I think fifty feet should be plenty.

While I agree in principle on raising the bar, how much do you think +/- 200 feet really affects safety of flight? Not much I think. When I did my own private I could hold 50 feet on a smooth day, but when I did the ride in the 20kt gusty wind and the bumps, 200 was barely attainable.

Fourth: I spoke to this earlier.

Getting 3 hours actual for a private? No way that's happening in some parts of the country. With some students this is going to backfire on you too, causing them to launch in weather they should be sitting out. What you really don't want to do is increase their comfort level with bad weather. They really need the crap scared out of them a time or two.

Fifth: I don't know that 500 hour PIC is doable but certainly more cross country time WITHOUT the use of GPS would be a good idea. Significant time working with ATC would be a good idea. The senior instructor who hired me said he has instructors who fear going into Class B or any towered airport. I'm puzzled by that one.

I was approaching 500 hours when I got mine, so it is doable, however I don't agree with the mold that low time pilots make lousy instructors. If their own training was top notch and they have the ability to teach, they can, armed with "fresh" knowledge, be as good or better than some extremely high time CFI's.

Sixth: More actual instrument time for a CFII is not a bad idea. It's hard to find those days in some areas and near impossible in some areas of the country. But, were it required there would be an excellent opportunity for schools in a few key areas to assist in building that experience.

It is a good idea, but as discussed before, getting it around here is extremely difficult and getting the ratings is expensive as it is, without having to travel to get some of the required experience. With regard to Bob's 50 hours? Good luck with that! It's hard enough to find a CFII around here. What that will do is make it even more difficult for students to get some advanced training? It's kinda like shooting yourself in the foot isn't it?

Seventh: I think this is an excellent idea.

More important would be to eliminate the "pencil whipped" FR somehow. I had one guy came to me for a FR and refused to let me do it when I told him it was gonna cost him a minimum of 1 hour dual and 1 hour ground. He told me he had been paying $20 bucks for his flight reviews for the last 10 years which consisted of "flying around for 30 minutes and then having a cup of coffee and talking about it." Interestingly he had geared up his Comanchee a year ealier and didn't see what was wrong with that picture.

 

[RMCN172RG]

Quote:

First, let's stop publishing the answers to FAA knowledge tests. While NAFI (National Association of Flight Instructors) lobbied hard to have the FAA publish the answers to their knowledge tests, such action encourages rating candidates to simply memorize the answers.​

Second, we must make the Private and Instrument Pilot Knowledge tests relevant to 21st century flight. Let's include questions on realistic aeronautical decision making (ADM) and actual flight scenarios. At last look, there were more questions pertaining to ADFs than GPS on the private pilot knowledge test. You can fail all weather related questions on the instrument pilot knowledge test and still pass. Who's minding the store here?​

Third, the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) should be tightened to allow a tolerance of no more than +/- 100 feet in straight and level flight instead of the current +/- 200 feet. If a pilot candidate cannot maintain this higher standard, something is desperately wrong with either his instruction or his skills.​

Fourth, the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) should require a minimum of 3 hours of flight in actual instrument conditions instead of simulated conditions as are now prescribed. Similarly, at least 10 hours of actual instrument flight should be required for the instrument rating. These changes address the fact that continued VFR flight into IFR conditions is the number one weather-related cause of all fatal accidents. Students need to see first-hand the challenges of flying solely by reference to instruments. Simulated instrument conditions are as phony as $3.00 bills.​

Fifth, no person should be issued a CFI certificate until he or she has logged a minimum of 500 PIC hours. The teaching principle known as primacy of learning suggests that what we learn first lasts longest. Using inexperienced pilots to teach new pilots affords new meaning to this principle.​

Sixth, no CFI-I certificate should be granted to any candidate who has not logged a minimum of 50 PIC hours in actual IFR conditions. Primacy of learning principle applies here as well.​

Seventh, an annual flight review should be required for all pilots logging less than 100 PIC hours in the previous 12 months.​

1) I suspect very few attempt to memorize the test. Being able to study by taking the test and reviewing the correct answers is invaluable. I think raising the percent correct required to pass would be more effective.

2) Relevance is difficult. The average GA aircraft is 30 years old. Does it have a GPS or an ADF. What's in the average rental aircraft. GPS is becoming common place, in new cars, handheld, for sportman, joggers, etc. Wher should the concentration be?

3) This was commented on above some allowance should be a made in the "test" environment. Weather, nerves, etc. I think the DPE's I've had for the PPL and IFR were less worried with the "bust" versus how I handled the aircraft under pressure. I felt the pressure.

4) I'm not sure about the at least or more IMC. It would be nice if IFR training could happen in IMC but the school I was at, and their insurance company did not allow the CFI to fly IFR training in IFR conditions.

5/6) A great idea's not practical. There are three CFI types I've run across those using it to build time moving into an aviation career, those who have it as their career and those who do it as a part time fun addition to their life. This would make it impossible for the 20 somethings to move from commercail license requirement of 250 to 500 hours, which is were actual flying jobs are now looking because of the shortage of pilots. Same IFR issues as previous question.

7) Well an anuual FR based on time or length since last flight maybe, but 100 hours or less seems high. I started 3/06, PPL 10/06, IFR 3/07. Since I only have 80 hours since then I need a FR if this were law. Actually I just spent 3.1 hours with a CFI to get IFR current and could have used that for the FR if legally required.

.02

 

[stingray]

While I personally think that more actual IMC time is a valuable thing. I also think that if you give more actual to every one they will become more comfortable in that environment and THINK they can handle it without the proper training. You get IMC incursions because the pilot launched thinking they could handle it with or without all the training. I think you would save more lives by eliminating the scud running type of flying. It would not be a popular thing but it would save lives. Maybe have a three tiered system instead of two. Sunny day VFR, Cruddy day VFR, and IFR. Or maybe Sunny day VFR, Marginal IFR, (Lets you drop down through clouds with 3000' AGL), and Hard IFR. Maybe more pilots would put in IMC practice with a CFII to learn and keep up the IMC time so they could fly THROUGH clouds but for the most part stay out of them and above any obstacles. They would not need to go into much of the approach work because they would not be doing approaches. They would be required to have XX hrs of actual IMC time each year to stay current. You would need this to fly anything other than 4000' ceiling with less than scattered.

Just my thoughts

In the end it is just safer to stay out of the clouds unless you are really serious about your flying and go to great lengths to keep up your skills.

Dan

 

[Areeda]

Here's my first impression:

First, let's stop publishing the answers to FAA knowledge tests.
​

The FAA doesn't publish them. I think the multiple choice test must test for rote knowlege. If we want to test to a higher level we should include fill in the blanks and essay questions. However then we'd need people to actually read them and cost and objectivity would suffer. The higher levels of understanding are tested in the oral portion of the practical tests now.
​

Second, we must make the Private and Instrument Pilot Knowledge tests relevant to 21st century flight.
​

I agree, maybe they could have a place to submit suggested new questions and we could help.

Third, the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) should be tightened
​

The problem I see with this is it implies more time checking the instruments and less time outside. This is a VFR rating, emphasis on the outside references.

Fourth, the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) should require a minimum of 3 hours of flight in actual instrument conditions instead of simulated conditions...Simulated instrument conditions are as phony as $3.00 bills.
​

OK, so here in Los Angeles we can only complete students in the Spring months.

Fifth, no person should be issued a CFI certificate until he or she has logged a minimum of 500 PIC hours.
​

I do agree with the concept. I also support Ed Guthrie's and other position that CFI should not log PIC for dual given except maybe private pre-solo.

Sixth, no CFI-I certificate should be granted to any candidate who has not logged a minimum of 50 PIC hours in actual IFR conditions.
​

Good idea but will require many to travel long distances to find it. Again in many parts of the country actual conditions that are not convective or known icing are hard to find.

Seventh, an annual flight review should be required for all pilots logging less than 100 PIC hours in the previous 12 months.

​

I would be more inclined to require a certain number Continuing Education Credits, ground and flight, for all pilots.

Joe

 

[bbchien]

few attempt to memorize the test. Being able to study by taking the test and reviewing the correct answers is invaluable. I think raising the percent correct required to pass would be more effective.

Memorization of the answers has been institutionalized by ALLATPs. When I did the test prep, I asked for a C2 handheld computer to do the mach calculation on the G3 trip from Cal to AZ. The instructor said, "I don't do Mach, just memorize the answer". The other three candidates spent five hours memorizing and went out for a snack.

We had a string on the Redboard from a pilot who railed about imissing the PVT by 1 question, saying he was a "bad test taker". But it turned out, he was memorizing the answers.

I agree with Miller on this one, and I think ti also ought to be 80%. Remember, this is the BARE minimum and at 70% you can be pretty stupid and still get by.....and MANY get to 70% just with memory.

 

[stingray]

Getting 3 hours actual for a private? No way that's happening in some parts of the country. With some students this is going to backfire on you too, causing them to launch in weather they should be sitting out. What you really don't want to do is increase their comfort level with bad weather. They really need the crap scared out of them a time or two.

This is what I tried to say. I just went around it the long way. Fly them into a cloud and have them do a climbing right turn. Then go home and clean them up. "See you do not want to do that with out the proper training." Now, it is kinda like teaching them to do a barrel roll so they will know how to do it if they NEED to.

Dan

 

[stingray]

I agree with Miller on this one, and I think ti also ought to be 80%. Remember, this is the BARE minimum and at 70% you can be pretty stupid and still get by.....and MANY get to 70% just with memory.

How about a second test after you get your ticket during each FR. 50 questions at random out of a pool of 2000. 90% to pass. After all after 2 years of flying this stuff should be known.

Dan

 

[RMCN172RG]

I agree with Miller on this one, and I think ti also ought to be 80%. Remember, this is the BARE minimum and at 70% you can be pretty stupid and still get by.....and MANY get to 70% just with memory.

I beleive if you can't get 70% on a multiple choice test your not even a good guesser.

 

[mantakos]

Given the mention of mistakes and associated fatalities, if the proposed fix is to increase the experience requirements for attaining a PP, my first reaction would be to look at the experience levels of the pilots involved in those accidents. When a 1000hr pilot crashes and dies, the idea that his PP training was short-changed by 5hrs isn't the thought that first comes to mind.

1) Publishing the question bank actually serves a purpose, it allows the FAA to point out the areas that are particularly important to know, the things that _need_ to be memorized. What would it mean for a candidate to know the currency requirements without memorizing them?

On the other hand, if people are memorizing complex calculations, then that's a problem with an easy fix. Just think of it like "card counting", and throw so many minor variations of the question and answer into the mix that it's no longer worth the effort to memorize.

2) Of course the question bank is outdated.

3) Changing the PTS altitude requirement isn't going to save anybody's life.

4) Requiring experience in "actual" is just not practical.

5) If you require CFIs to have 500hrs of PIC time, you're just going to have CFIs with bigger loans, and a couple hundred hours of safety pilot time, right-seating for another CFI candidate under the hood, and a whole lot of 2hr flights back and forth between the same set of airports. The idea that adding lots of hours will add lots of experience is fallacious. If you want more experience, you need to specify the experience you want them to have. How about a 1000nm cross-country? Experience at B, C, D, and E/G airports?

6) I think it is reasonable to have an "actual" requirement for CFI-I candidates, but 50 is way too high. Maybe 5. This is something CFIs may have to travel to attain.

7) If you want BFRs to be AFRs (annual flight reviews), you need to have accident statistics to point to that indicate that this might solve a problem we have.
-harry

 

[bbchien]

I've always said that the underlying issue is how to measure and teach pilot judgement. I think most would agree that there ARE some personalities that simply should not be allowed behind the stick (yoke). The difficulty is measuring in a non-abuseable way!

Just like the pilot on the Van's site who insists that everyone else who doesn't know what-to-expect when they do a formation overhead break (hey, mon that's not on the PTS) is ignorant, that's a guy with a problem. A Judgment problem....busy nontowered public airstrip with lots of basic traffic..... The VFR only who pops thrugh a layer of cloud and then decides there's nothing wrong with that and ventures farther.....the guy with Non FIKI who gets away with more and more.

"That was the best flying I ever saw.....until you crashed!" Until we have such a yardstick, I too think we need to raise the bar. It may kill GA, but so will the increasingly impossible premiums we see from this sort of adventuring...

 

[jwriteclub]

I think that the original post is way off base. I mean, why don't we lower the ATP requirement a little and everyone takes the ATP?

The private pilot (and commercial for that matter) are VFR ratings. You could take the ride in a piper cub, except for the hood part. I think that the 3 hours of hood time is troublesome given that it is on the IFR ride. On the other hand, I understand the reason behind it.

50 hours of actual for CFI-Is? I don't know. I got my IFR ticket in the Northwest, so virtually the whole thing was actual and I have almost 150 hrs actual and less than 1000 TT.

On the other hand, in California one has to chase the clouds around and check the METARS for the airports with the lowest weather in order to be able to log it.

~ Christopher

 

[gprellwitz]

Seventh, an annual flight review should be required for all pilots logging less than 100 PIC hours in the previous 12 months.

​

I would be more inclined to require a certain number Continuing Education Credits, ground and flight, for all pilots.

Joe

That sounds like the FAAST (Wings) program.

 

[nosehair]

What a 'dream sheet'. It also points out how insufficient our experience requirements are, and how the 'economy' rules over safety.

Most instrument pilots will tell you to get some 'actual' with an instructor before you go actual with pax. I would bet money that a majority of pilots and FAA inspectors would agree.

But, look at the responses to posing that as a requirement.

"Oh, it would cost me too much money."

"We don't get any actual around here."

"How can I become a shiny-jet pilot in 90 days if I have to get some weather time - that could cause a delay in my life."

I hear a lot of whining here.

What if -

The medical profession allowed doctors to become licensed without actual practice on cadavers because "it takes too much trouble to find cadavers".

What if the fire dept. stopped doing real-fire drills because "it burns up too much money."

I am 100% in favor of some actual instrument time to become instrument rated. This would include a number of actual instrument approaches down to near minimums.

Sure, it would make the rating a lot more of a pain - but the results would be the better benefit. Lives would be saved.

The only way the Flight review is going to be meaningful is to stop letting young inexperienced instructors do it. They are easily intimidated by the 'old guys' with their own airplanes who just want to get a 'quickie'.

A FR should be done by at least a 2-year who has special authorization by the FAA, like a DE, and each Flight Review is documented and the instructor's activity is monitored by the FAA, so that it will be harder to "give away" the flight review.

aaand the flight review should be varied according to experience: something like every year for the first 2-3 years and 3-500 hours, then every 2 years for a few more years, and 500-1000 hours, then every 3-5 years after 5 years and 1000 hours.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Personally, while I agree with the importance of actual instrument experience to a pilot, I don't think taking the current 3-hour requirement for private pilots and putting it in the clouds is going to make much difference.

What is the typical "VFR into IMC" scenario? Cruising along at 5500' and fly into a wall of clouds? There, the well-hashed 180 might work. I'd be more inclined to believe, though, that the typical scenario is more along the lines of "I'm down here dodging towers and trees...the clouds are coming down, and I can't keep descending." Neither a sudden requirement to fly on instruments, nor a conscious decision to fly into the clouds, but rather an almost conscious decision NOT to make the decisions required to end the flight safely.

So...what do you do? You either make a precautionary landing, and how many of us have had training in off-airport precautionary (as opposed to emergency) landings? Very few, I'd bet. Yet in a lot of cases it's probably the safer choice.

The other option is to pull up into the clouds and fly instruments. OK...we're here. Now what?

How high do I go? How do I contact ATC for help? Those two are the easy answers, yet I wasn't trained in them.

I need to give ATC my approximate location. I need to either have an option in mind, or be able to accurately assess the options they give me in relation to my abilities and the airplane's equipment. In all likelihood, the clouds in my area are lower than a lot of nonprecision approach minimums. ASR? Yeah, there's one 245 miles away, but VFR conditions are closer the other direction. ILS? Well, I can program VNAV into my VFR GPS...but can I do that without losing control of the airplane?...

The point of my rant is that "instrument training in the clouds" really isn't any more of a cure-all than "instrument training" by itself. There are just too many things that still aren't required to be taught that play heavily into the outcome.

The same applies to "50 hours PIC in actual" for CFII candidates...make it "solo" and it might have some relevance. But check out all the controversy over a simple "solo" cross-country for the commercial certificate.

The FAA tightening its requirements isn't going to help us...WE as instructors need to uphold a higher standard for what we teach.

Fly safe!

David

 

[nosehair]

The FAA tightening its requirements isn't going to help us...WE as instructors need to uphold a higher standard for what we teach.

I agree 100% on your philosophy and the principle of teaching what needs to be taught beyound the PTS items. The real-time problem is that student pilots and the public, in general, think that FAA minimum standards is enough. Going beyond the skill and knowledge level requirement of the U.S. Government seems just a bit too much - like maybe you're ripping me off. That is a real time problem.

Young inexperienced instructors also don't know that the goverment minimum isn't enough - so, no one is actually trying to get better than PTS minimums.

So, because of the way the FAA has presented the time and skill requirements, we instructors have a very hard time convincing someone to spend a couple thousand more bucks when it looks like they already have all they need.

 

[stingray]

I agree 100% on your philosophy and the principle of teaching what needs to be taught beyound the PTS items. The real-time problem is that student pilots and the public, in general, think that FAA minimum standards is enough. Going beyond the skill and knowledge level requirement of the U.S. Government seems just a bit too much - like maybe you're ripping me off. That is a real time problem.

Young inexperienced instructors also don't know that the goverment minimum isn't enough - so, no one is actually trying to get better than PTS minimums.

So, because of the way the FAA has presented the time and skill requirements, we instructors have a very hard time convincing someone to spend a couple thousand more bucks when it looks like they already have all they need.

The problem is the kind of flying you do. Not everyone get a pilots license to go CC. The basic test is good for the pilot that just wants to fly around the patch, no fancy stuff just go up fly around on a sunny day and come back down. Why should that pilot have to go through all the hoops to be a cross country scud running or IFR pilot?

It is all going to lie with the pilots themselves, they need to understand that currency and further training is something that they need to do to stay safe. Get them hooked for less then train them into furthering their adventures.

Dan

 

[wayne]

I read his posting and while some of it makes sense other parts are a bit too much. Some of his suggestions would kill GA faster than user fees. How much more do you think training would cost with the increase in hours? It's a snowballing effect, CFI's would cost more, and then planes would fly less which would increase the rental costs for them.

People may not be memorizing the tests via the answers, but gaming theory and the answers will help you learn the test versus the knowledge. I learned the answers for ADF's and HSI's as I didn't fly with either. I now fly with an HSI, but I still know next to nothing about ADF.

Getting actual is important. As others have said, it depends upon what you plan to do. Bob is in the northeast. It's easy to get actual there, and you will encounter it a lot if you plan on traveling in a plane (versus flying around the patch or $100 Hamburger runs). It's quite a bit harder to get in Arizona.

I go out and get actual time for as much of my instrument currency as possible. I'm in the southeast and we get IMC on a regular basis. I travel whether it's CAVU or IMC. My family travels with me. I want to be proficient, not merely current.

I disagree with simulated instrument time being phony. Spend some time being a safety pilot for someone and watch them wander all over the place on a VOR, localizer or ILS. Or try to make a good holding pattern and struggle with altitude and direction. Yes, actual is different and there's no peeking either. When the bumping in the clouds and the wind and light makes it look/feel like you are turning when you are not, it's different. And a whole new meaning to flying by the instruments occurs.

But 50 hours of actual?

The test does need to be heavily revamped though. Questions on ADF, come on. I've only flown two planes with an ADF and one of them was inop and the other was old and few people flew it. The weather needs to be much more up-to-date. The old black-and-white charts I found mostly in the test. With WSI stations at so many airports and similar info online there is much more and better information available today and pilots need to know how to use it.

The annual review for pilots with under 100 hours per year would be the vast majority of GA pilots (outside of those that fly professionally). Bob flies more than that, but he also works as a CFI. I had over 90 hours last year and that was more than most I know that don't fly professionally. I also think I didn't fly that much; i.e. I'd like to fly more. Still an annual review might be a good idea. The flight school / club I rent from requires it.

There are a lot of things I think should be included in the private training that were not there. But those are things I'm personally interested in. I knew very little about traveling (beyond the basics of plotting a course with sectional, E6B and weather data). Not everyone wants to travel in GA plane though.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

First, let's stop publishing the answers to FAA knowledge tests. While NAFI (National Association of Flight Instructors) lobbied hard to have the FAA publish the answers to their knowledge tests, such action encourages rating candidates to simply memorize the answers.

Problem is, what about when the questions are wrong? On my PP knowledge test I answered a question correctly with the given information but it was marked wrong. Showed it to CFI, he agreed. Showed it to DPE, he agreed too. Without being able to go back through the questions afterwards, I wouldn't have even known about this, and there'd still be an incorrect question. (Actually, I don't know for sure that it's been taken care of... Hmmm.)

Second, we must make the Private and Instrument Pilot Knowledge tests relevant to 21st century flight. Let's include questions on realistic aeronautical decision making (ADM) and actual flight scenarios. At last look, there were more questions pertaining to ADFs than GPS on the private pilot knowledge test. You can fail all weather related questions on the instrument pilot knowledge test and still pass. Who's minding the store here?

I think that's something that has to be in the oral. True scenario-based ADM cannot be adequately covered by multiple choice.

Third, the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) should be tightened to allow a tolerance of no more than +/- 100 feet in straight and level flight instead of the current +/- 200 feet. If a pilot candidate cannot maintain this higher standard, something is desperately wrong with either his instruction or his skills.

Amen to that! Kind of odd, considering most of the maneuvers are ±100. I didn't realize that straight and level was ±200.

Fourth, the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) should require a minimum of 3 hours of flight in actual instrument conditions instead of simulated conditions as are now prescribed.

Disagree. It'd be nice, but we're already short on pilots - How many new pilots do you think there would be in Arizona each year if they were required to get actual? I'd suggest some time in a sim should be enough.

Similarly, at least 10 hours of actual instrument flight should be required for the instrument rating.

That, I can get behind.

Simulated instrument conditions are as phony as $3.00 bills.

Amen to that!

Fifth, no person should be issued a CFI certificate until he or she has logged a minimum of 500 PIC hours. The teaching principle known as primacy of learning suggests that what we learn first lasts longest. Using inexperienced pilots to teach new pilots affords new meaning to this principle.

I agree with the principle, but I think in practice "500 PIC" isn't likely to fix anything. Remember the saying "Do you have 500 hours, or do you have the same hour 500 times?" I think the problem would be much better addressed by requiring CFI's to have several extended-length (ie 500nm or greater from the home drome) cross countries, and make it so that the furthest destination on each one must be at least 150 or 200nm away from the others. Also, require some VFR and some IFR. That would ensure that these CFI's would be exposed to terrain, airspace, and local idiosyncrasies of unfamiliar areas. I learn new things every time I take an extended cross country like this, and that is what a CFI needs - Not just 500 more trips around the patch at the home drome, or 500 hops to the same favorite $100 burger joint.

Sixth, no CFI-I certificate should be granted to any candidate who has not logged a minimum of 50 PIC hours in actual IFR conditions. Primacy of learning principle applies here as well.

Yup - But again, there should be two or three extended cross countries as part of this requirement.

Seventh, an annual flight review should be required for all pilots logging less than 100 PIC hours in the previous 12 months.

Hmmm... I like it. Now, if only there were a way to avoid pencil-whipping... Maybe require that each flight review must be given by a different instructor than the previous two? That way you'd not only learn new and different things from different instructors, it'd be a lot harder to find three pencil-whippers than just one.

A few weeks ago, I spoke with a senior instructor with one of the largest schools in the country. He has over 1,200 hours total time but only .7 actual and he admitted that wasn't even more than losing contact with the ground for a period of time.

Which, by definition, isn't necessarily loggable actual! Being on top with good vis is not actual . Only the trip through to get on top is loggable. "control the aircraft solely by reference to instruments..."

I gained just 4.7 hours during my instrument training and struggled for more. An hour of it came from my bailing on work to make a second flight that afternoon for more experience.

It's tough... That's why when the weather sucks but it's flyable IMC, I make the effort to go get in it even if I wasn't planning on flying. I've still only managed to stay current this way about half the time. I've needed two IPC's since getting the rating two years ago, and this month I'm not current for the first time - Only 5 approaches and no holds in the last 6 months.

Second: Yes, add more with regard to weather services use; particularly reading reports and graphics.

And that reminds me: Bring the questions up to date with the weather products that are available today!!!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

1) I suspect very few attempt to memorize the test. Being able to study by taking the test and reviewing the correct answers is invaluable. I think raising the percent correct required to pass would be more effective.

I think a lot more people memorize than you might think, especially those who are headed for the airlines. At least, the schools catering to that type of pilot seem to encourage it.

I agree that 80% or 85% would be much better. 70% is a joke.

I also wish the questions were worded better. I read through them all before I take the tests because some of them are worded so as to be very confusing. Those questions, while I know the "real" answer, I need to learn the "FAA" answer. That's the positive side of having the questions available.

4) I'm not sure about the at least or more IMC. It would be nice if IFR training could happen in IMC but the school I was at, and their insurance company did not allow the CFI to fly IFR training in IFR conditions.

I can't STAND places like this! Where did you train? There's an FBO that trains at West Bend and Fond du Lac that has absolutely asinine rules.

Maybe have a three tiered system instead of two. Sunny day VFR, Cruddy day VFR, and IFR.

Cruddy days, you should go IFR. The middle level should maybe allow to pop up through a layer that starts >3000 AGL and cruise on top, but when do you know what's happening to the cloud bases then? Wouldn't work.

I also support Ed Guthrie's and other position that CFI should not log PIC for dual given except maybe private pre-solo.

I disagree - The CFI needs to think like the Acting PIC even if they are not, because their ticket is on the line. The only instance where I think the CFI should not be able to log PIC is when they're teaching a pilot with orders of magnitude more experience. However, that's rare enough that I'm OK with the rule as-is.

I think Ed's reasoning was to keep the time-builder type out of instructing, but I don't think there's any way you can force people to be good instructors. They have to want it, and the only way it can really be regulated is with well-informed students going elsewhere.

I'd be more inclined to believe, though, that the typical scenario is more along the lines of "I'm down here dodging towers and trees...the clouds are coming down, and I can't keep descending." Neither a sudden requirement to fly on instruments, nor a conscious decision to fly into the clouds, but rather an almost conscious decision NOT to make the decisions required to end the flight safely.

So...what do you do? You either make a precautionary landing, and how many of us have had training in off-airport precautionary (as opposed to emergency) landings? Very few, I'd bet. Yet in a lot of cases it's probably the safer choice.

Excellent idea! I would suggest that landing on a grass field should be a requirement for PP-ASEL. I think people who have never done it are afraid to land anywhere unpaved, and most of the time you're much better off landing in that big open farm field than on that tiny country road. (Oh, and did you notice the power lines right next to it? And the sign posts? And... Yeah. I think I'd be uncomfortable landing on anything smaller than an interstate.)

 

[MauleSkinner]

I agree 100% on your philosophy and the principle of teaching what needs to be taught beyound the PTS items. The real-time problem is that student pilots and the public, in general, think that FAA minimum standards is enough. Going beyond the skill and knowledge level requirement of the U.S. Government seems just a bit too much - like maybe you're ripping me off. That is a real time problem.

Young inexperienced instructors also don't know that the goverment minimum isn't enough - so, no one is actually trying to get better than PTS minimums.

So, because of the way the FAA has presented the time and skill requirements, we instructors have a very hard time convincing someone to spend a couple thousand more bucks when it looks like they already have all they need.

I don't even think we need to teach "beyond the PTS"...The PTS is simply a bare-bones outline. I don't believe there was anything in my post that doesn't fit within the PTS standards. It's simply a matter of teaching at a rote level or an application/correlation level before sending them up for the checkride.

An example from about 30 minutes ago...every instrument-rated pilot can spout enough knowledge about cruise clearances to pass a written and most orals. "A cruise clearance allows you to fly to the airport and shoot either a SIAP or visual approach. If you report leaving an altitude, you can't go back to it." Move on to the next part of the PTS.

On the other hand, you might ask the student "Why would I request a cruise clearance instead of a visual or SIAP?" Hmmm...my copilot figured it out after the fact (3 miles vis...by the time we spotted the airport, requested and received the visual, we'd be out of sight of the airport...let's deal with this in advance. We also discussed some other circumstances that I've used them commonly.)

"If you can freely descend from the maximum altitude stated in your cruise clearance, what is the MINIMUM altitude at which you can fly prior to sighting the airport or being established on a SIAP?" Make 'em think a little bit about what a cruise clearance exactly is, and how THEY are responsible for the safety of the flight when requesting or accepting one.

That is not "beyond the PTS" IMO. It's simply a matter of how deep "into the PTS" we teach. So what if we know the examiner's not going to ask those questions? It doesn't negate the requirement for the applicant to understand a cruise clearance.

Fly safe!

David

 

[MauleSkinner]

Excellent idea! I would suggest that landing on a grass field should be a requirement for PP-ASEL. I think people who have never done it are afraid to land anywhere unpaved, and most of the time you're much better off landing in that big open farm field than on that tiny country road. (Oh, and did you notice the power lines right next to it? And the sign posts? And... Yeah. I think I'd be uncomfortable landing on anything smaller than an interstate.)

Personally, by the time I was 23 and had my first charter job, I had seen more takeoff and landing operations from gravel roads than I had airports. It was fairly common where I grew up to have sprayers fly off country roads, and I spent a total of about 10 summers working part- or full-time as a loader/flagger. I've also made a few of those takeoffs and landings myself. Pick 'em, look at 'em, and decide how to do it.

The problem, IMO, isn't so much the power lines and signposts...they can be dealt with. The problem is that the PILOT has to evaluate and make the decisions as to where the touchdown zone is going to be, what the proper glidepath should look like, how much length is available, and what other options are available, all the while flying the airplane close to the ground in worsening weather conditions. It's neither a "normal" landing nor a "you just lost your engine...whattaya gonna do?" landing. I don't think most pilots have the foggiest idea how complex the precautionary landing is, nor how simple you can make it with some reasonable understanding of the situation.

Fly safe!

David

 

[jwriteclub]

I must say on the 500 hour instructor: Were already requiring 250 (and I think that all coms should be 250, ditch 141). How are pilots going to get the hours needed to be hired if they can't build a couple hundred hours.

Also, where will we find CFIs?

~ Christopher

 

[alaskaflyer]

When I read the NTSB fatality reports I don't see many (hardly any?) 50 or 100 or 150 hour pilots dying, unless they are on board with an instructor

What I do see is a lot of 200+ hour pilots biting the big one.

This is not unknown to the FAA or to most of you.

In my decidedly inexpert opinion we teach the "what" very well to new pilots, but we don't teach the "why" very well at all. The newly minted private goes forth with his rote knowledge, colors between the lines as he was taught and is generally very safe. As he builds experience he might decide to color outside the lines a little, or get a little lazy, without truly understanding the possible ramifications of his actions, and gets zapped by the stall spin splat on approach or the fuel exhaustion in the strong headwind. Or perhaps he understands the ramifications but he does not understand which things will truly sneak up and kill you and what might result in a bruised ego.

I don't see Bob Miller's suggestions improving on this problem at all. We lose pilots because of poor judgment not poor technical skills. People don't get slow on approach because they are incapable of maintaining a trimmed approach speed; they get slow because they get complacent or distracted and perhaps their instructor didn't tell them about all of the very experienced pilots that die every year because THEY got complacent with their airspeed.

I don't know...I'm rambling but I've been frustrated lately because I see pilots dying all around me from low-altitude stalls and spins and yet the FAA continues to emphasize runway incursions for crying out loud

 

[KennyFlys]

When I read the NTSB fatality reports I don't see many (hardly any?) 50 or 100 or 150 hour pilots dying, unless they are on board with an instructor

What I do see is a lot of 200+ hour pilots biting the big one.

This is not unknown to the FAA or to most of you.

No, it's not. Yet, it doesn't seem drilled in enough. Or, subscribers to various journals are ignoring such articles.

The low-time, under 500 hours would seemingly be the highest risk. Oddly, it's those with 1500 hours or more. ATP tickets are more prone to accidents than PPL.

Complacency comes to mind.

 

[tonycondon]

complancency is probably part of it. most ATPs just fly a heck of a lot more than the under 500 hour crowd as well. more flying is more opportunity to make mistakes so more risk to have an accident

 

[stingray]

complancency is probably part of it. most ATPs just fly a heck of a lot more than the under 500 hour crowd as well. more flying is more opportunity to make mistakes so more risk to have an accident

I don't think hrs in its self has a lot to do with it. I can fly @ 10,000' 1 leg in VFR sunny weather 5 hrs with 1 takeoff and 1 landing. Or I can fly 10 1/2 hr jumps to here and there with 10 TO and 10 landings. And in some planes you can couple the AP @ 500' and back off again @ 500' I mean what did you really do as far as flying goes.

Maybe we need to take back a little of the money we give to airports for those $1000,000.00 tractors to plow a runway that gets used once a week and use it to pay DPE's so pilots do not have to pay for a FR. Or better yet give it to QUALIFIED CFI's to do a FR.

Dan

 

[bbchien]

Sigh. It's about two very difficutly things to put you finger on.

(1) Pilot Judgement
(2) What makes a "good" CFI....

....though it IS true, as Marty Mayes pointed out severaly years ago. GA pilots do NOT spend enough time training.

 

[121Dispatch]

In addition to some of the things mentioned already, I find one major component lacking in all of the training requirements - that is emergency/abnormal training.

Of course, it is taught, but how realistically? I'm sure some places do a great job (simcom perhaps, but i'm not intimately familiar). We have all had the instructor pull the power, and say, you just lost your engine, now what. And during instrument training, the post-it notes added to cover up the vacuum instruments.

I find that half the problem is recognizing what is going wrong, and how to deal with it. Currently, the instructor takes the hard part out by TELLING you what just happened. In an ideal training environment, students would be required to have sim time - starting at the initial student pilot level.

I want to see students noticing low oil temperature, low voltage, the slow death of instruments due to vacuum failure, etc. It's not quite as easy to recognize and go through flow procedures, as it is to be given the scenario, then rattle off a memorized procedure without actually doing the procedure physically and seeing the results.

Of course, all this adds to the regulation, and ends up costing the student money, which is arleady possibly tight. At the very least, I would like to see and "Emergency/Abnormal" course offered at flight schools...at least if it isn't mandated, there would likely be a few that would be willing to shell out the extra $$$ to be challenged to proficiency in this area.

 

[gismo]

I've been reading through Bob Miller's last "Over the Airwaves" issue. He makes some interesting proposals and with good reason. Last week, I attended an FAAST/ASF safety seminar titled, "Five Mistakes Pilots Make."

Miller's statements refer to Number 4, particularly when it comes to VFR flight into IMC, something I came to know firsthand some twenty years ago.

My own experience convinced me three hours under the hood is by no means sufficient for a private pilot certificate. I'm also in favor of at six to eight hours with part of it at least two, long cross-country legs. Add another two to three hours in actual instrument conditions. Currently, not even an instrument rating requires actual instrument experience.

First, there's at least a couple good reason why the IR itself, let alone the PPL doesn't require actual IMC experience. One is that in many areas of the country safe "actual" IMC is simply available so seldom that you'd never get done with the training in a reasonable time. Another is that many of the airplanes that are otherwise suitable for PPL training aren't legal in IMC. Third, training in IMC requires that the the airplane never depart from rather tight parameters of flight. This is plausible in the later stages of IR training when the basics are already established, but not for the average PPL trainee. Finally there's the ugly issue of what kind of conditions would be acceptable for the training. Must you have low ceilings? Visibility below 1 mile? Precipitation? All of these parameters would affect the "quality" of the "actual" training to a very large degree.

Personally, I think a better idea would be to require some time on a PCATD which despite lousy motion fidelity can provide an experience much closer to "actual" than foggles and could be set up for certain specific scenarios that represent real world PPL issues complete with towers sticking up into the murk, turbulence, whiteouts, low fog layers you can see through until you get close to the ground, and for that added touch of realism, the audio system could add screaming passengers for a distraction.

A few weeks ago, I spoke with a senior instructor with one of the largest schools in the country. He has over 1,200 hours total time but only .7 actual and he admitted that wasn't even more than losing contact with the ground for a period of time. I gained just 4.7 hours during my instrument training and struggled for more. An hour of it came from my bailing on work to make a second flight that afternoon for more experience.

Now that's a problem that could and should be addressed. All my IR instruction was from CFIIs with real world cross country IMC experience and I can't imagine how someone with no time in the real system and weather could impart anywhere near the knowledge one should have before venturing into IMC on their own. Sure such instructors can turn out students that can pass the IR PTS but that's not enough IMO. Even for the instrument instruction needed for PPL students ought to be given by someone who has first hand experience with the real challenges a PPL might face in poor weather.

On the first, I wasn't aware the FAA published answers. I have the question banks but thought they will not publish their answers. If they are, I'd favor not publishing answers.

They've been publishing them for something like 20 years. And before they did that, the companies that provided test prep used to pay each student to remember one or two questions on their test along with all the answer choices. Then the prep provider would gather all this together and publish their own version of the answer book for their students to use. But if the FAA didn't create so many stupid questions with answers designed to cause the testee to make mistakes in interpretation rather than content/knowledge I might be inclined to go along with the notion of keeping the answers "secret" but there are always some questions on the test that a person with complete knowledge of the subject matter is likely to get wrong simply because the question and answer choices are so badly concocted.

Second: Yes, add more with regard to weather services use; particularly reading reports and graphics.

Maybe. What I don't see is any correlation between misinterpreting weather forecasts and accidents. WRT VFR into IMC what matters in most cases (excluding the exceedingly stupid launch into low IMC by a non-IR pilot) is the ability and willingness to determine that a new plan is needed and execute it when the weather on the other side of the windshield isn't safe to continue into under VFR. And the FAA could eliminate the need to interpret arcane acronyms and abbreviations in the reports and forecasts if such interpretation is any part of the problem. Yes there are advantages to terse condensed reports, but only to the seasoned weather reader. Why give them an advantage at the expense of the newbies?

Third: I think fifty feet should be plenty.

Another big MAYBE. If there's truly a correlation between the inability to fly to tighter tolerances under VFR and accident rates then this might make sense, but I seriously doubt that there's such evidence. ADM is a much bigger issue than stick and rudder skills for most new pilots and even the mechanical skills really only affect safety when near the ground such as landing and to a lesser extent, takeoff. Teach students how to recover from small mistakes during the landing rollout instead of requiring them to hold altitude within 50 ft during straight and level flight would likely have much more significant effect on accident rates.

 

[stingray]

Third, training in IMC requires that the the airplane never depart from rather tight parameters of flight.

Get a block altitude and have at it. You are not training approaches at this point just actual IMC. (Climbing right turns, slow flight, Climbs, descents.) I did this in my training for VFR. I think my response was "It's not me it's the plane". "Must be the wind". "Why won't it just stay still". "NO! I got it, I got it." "Is it hot in here or what". "How come your not sweating?" One of the first things I learned in IMC is what not to do. The best thing you can do is let go of the yoke, then just use your fingers rather than your hand. (A plane in motion stays in motion).

Dan

 

[tonycondon]

I don't think hrs in its self has a lot to do with it. I can fly @ 10,000' 1 leg in VFR sunny weather 5 hrs with 1 takeoff and 1 landing. Or I can fly 10 1/2 hr jumps to here and there with 10 TO and 10 landings. And in some planes you can couple the AP @ 500' and back off again @ 500' I mean what did you really do as far as flying goes.

either way you are exposed to 5 hours more risk than the typical PP-ASEL who didnt go flying that day.

Maybe we need to take back a little of the money we give to airports for those $1000,000.00 tractors to plow a runway that gets used once a week and use it to pay DPE's so pilots do not have to pay for a FR. Or better yet give it to QUALIFIED CFI's to do a FR.

government sponsored proficiency training...neat idea but im pretty sure we dont want to go down that road.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Maybe we need to take back a little of the money we give to airports for those $1000,000.00 tractors to plow a runway that gets used once a week and use it to pay DPE's so pilots do not have to pay for a FR. Or better yet give it to QUALIFIED CFI's to do a FR.

Dan

There again, you run into the problem of the government having to create a guideline to determine a "qualified CFI". Any time you have the government regulating the definition of "qualified", you're going to run into loopholes or bad law.

We need to find a way to get pilots to WANT to schedule recurrent training. That will, almost by definition, be with a "qualified" CFI. We have instructors that everyone calls for a flight review because they're cheap and easy, and if they HAVE to train, they want to get it over with. Every once in a while, though, these pilots stumble across an instructor that can show them areas that they can improve, as well as motivation to want that improvement. Then, suddenly, you have pilots calling for recurrent training when they don't legally need it, and who are more willing to learn something from you because they've realized that you've got something they want.

And you end up with a better, more qualified pilot WITHOUT increased regulation.

I've seen it in particular with trainee-owned airplanes. If you can teach them something about THEIR airplane, that they've been flying for several years, you have demonstrated that you care about the trainee's interests enough to spend a little of your own time to gain an instructional knowledge beyond what you usually teach, just for that individual's benefit.

Fly safe!

David

 

[gprellwitz]

We need to find a way to get pilots to WANT to schedule recurrent training.

What, the current "do it or DIE!" doesn't work for you?

 

[TMetzinger]

In regards to the test - for every other professional certification I've tested for, i had to have an overall passing score, not just on the test, but on each of the major subject areas in the test. One security credential I hold has ten specific areas in it's body of knowledge, and the test requires no less than a 65% score in each area, and an 85% overall, which means that you can be weak in one or two areas, but not ignorant of any. The test is 200 questions, so there are twenty questions per subject area.

Publishing the answers is important, as the FAA test questions are often poor and the answers are worse. Another alternative would be to get the aviation community more involved in the process of creating the tests and the answers.

I won't address the other issues, but I recently listened to Bob Miller on Aeronews talking about personal minimums and an issue he had while flying his 210. Some things he said I completely disagreed with, and as a result his rep has slipped in my eyes. I'm going to force myself to listen to it again (I was so torqued I stopped mid-stream) and write a post on the subject this weekend.

 

[stingray]

There again, you run into the problem of the government having to create a guideline to determine a "qualified CFI". Any time you have the government regulating the definition of "qualified", you're going to run into loopholes or bad law.
David

No law, just diverting some of the wasted money (My opinion) that gets sent to some airports just because they ask for it.

Put it where it does the most good. As far as "qualified", I was thinking more of "Rating system" for the CFI. Sorta like Ebays. After you get your FR you send in a rating. I was trying to get rid of the pencil whippers or the CFI just in it for the buck. You get too many bad reviews and your off the list.

Dan

 

[Maxmosbey]

I'm going to chime in here. I represent that low time private pilot with not very much IFR training. I feel like I need more IFR training, and one of these days I'm going to get around to taking some dual and working on that, but I'm not really sure how important it is going to be that I get it. I think that it will be fun, and I think that it will help me to learn to watch the instruments a little better. Right now, I spend a good amount of time looking right and left for traffic, as I am more afraid of hitting another plane than I am of getting caught in IFR conditions. I always hear pilots telling other pilots that they have to get their head out of the cockpit. Well, my problem is getting my head in the cockpit. The plane that I started flying in, did not have a lot of instruments, and to this day, I don't really use most of the ones that I have. Most of my control cues come from outside. For that reason, I think that some work under the hood would be good for me. But as far as getting caught in IFR conditions, there are a lot of other things that I worry about more. For one thing, I don't go flying if there isn't plenty of visibility. For another, I don't fly if they are predicting any bad weather, and finally, I don't get that far from home.

OK, so it seems to me that the kind of people who get in trouble scud running are the same kind of people who get caught for OWI. If I have had a few drinks, I'm more than happy to have someone else take me home. If I'm out at some airport, and it looks like it is going to get crappy, I'm more than happy to stay put. Flying around is pretty serious business to me, and I don't push the envelope. I know my limitations, and the limitations of my rating, and I stay will within them.

So to the point, should the requirements for a private pilot be raised, just in case someone like me gets attacked by a rogue cloud? Personally, I think that IFR pilots staying current is a more important concern. I see a pilot with an IFR, who doesn't fly enough IFR to stay proficient, to be more of a problem. There seems to be more of a potential for them to get in over their head, than a fair weather pilot like myself.

A sport pilot is a sport pilot, a private pilot is a private pilot, and an instrument pilot is an instrument pilot. The problem is when someone tries to be what they aren't. Personally, I think that the IFR requirement for a private pilot is nothing more than an introduction to IFR flying. I don't see it as being a way of getting yourself out of IFR conditions because you happen to find yourself running into them. A private pilot without an instrument rating should not be anywhere near IFR conditions. If they are, they need an instrument rating, not some more time under the hood. It lets the private pilot see what it takes to fly IFR, and if they are so inclined, they can pursue that course if they think that their flying is going to take them into those conditions.

 

[MauleSkinner]

No law, just diverting some of the wasted money (My opinion) that gets sent to some airports just because they ask for it.

Put it where it does the most good. As far as "qualified", I was thinking more of "Rating system" for the CFI. Sorta like Ebays. After you get your FR you send in a rating. I was trying to get rid of the pencil whippers or the CFI just in it for the buck. You get too many bad reviews and your off the list.

Dan

Ah..."diverting"...Unless you're willing to call it "embezzlement", you're not going to "divert" government money without government legislation or intervention...back to square one.

Fly safe!

David

 

[121Dispatch]

<B>

First, let's stop publishing the answers to FAA knowledge tests. While NAFI (National Association of Flight Instructors) lobbied hard to have the FAA publish the answers to their knowledge tests, such action encourages rating candidates to simply memorize the answers.​

</B>

I have actually learned quite a bit by studying this way. I certainly don’t memorize an entire bank of tests. I find this is really not much different that having a review session at the end of a chapter in a textbook. The only difference is, the questions and answers are the actual ones the FAA thinks you should know. Dunno, these give me practice, and some insight into what the FAA deems important - but they should be used responsibly...the schools should not be advocating memorizing just to get the test out of the way.​

<B>

Second, we must make the Private and Instrument Pilot Knowledge tests relevant to 21st century flight. Let's include questions on realistic aeronautical decision making (ADM) and actual flight scenarios. At last look, there were more questions pertaining to ADFs than GPS on the private pilot knowledge test. You can fail all weather related questions on the instrument pilot knowledge test and still pass. Who's minding the store here?​

</B>

ok​

<B>

Third, the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) should be tightened to allow a tolerance of no more than +/- 100 feet in straight and level flight instead of the current +/- 200 feet. If a pilot candidate cannot maintain this higher standard, something is desperately wrong with either his instruction or his skills.​

</B>

ok​

<B>

Fourth, the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) should require a minimum of 3 hours of flight in actual instrument conditions instead of simulated conditions as are now prescribed. Similarly, at least 10 hours of actual instrument flight should be required for the instrument rating. These changes address the fact that continued VFR flight into IFR conditions is the number one weather-related cause of all fatal accidents. Students need to see first-hand the challenges of flying solely by reference to instruments. Simulated instrument conditions are as phony as $3.00 bills.​

</B>

Kinda tough in a place that has 300 sunny days a year, and ice/thunderstorms the remainder. Lots of folks waiting around to finish their PPL, then all fighting for the aircraft on the bad days (if they haven't given up in the meantime). I can’t really get behind this one at all.​

<B>

Fifth, no person should be issued a CFI certificate until he or she has logged a minimum of 500 PIC hours. The teaching principle known as primacy of learning suggests that what we learn first lasts longest. Using inexperienced pilots to teach new pilots affords new meaning to this principle.​

</B>

No way – Are most of us in agreement that CFI is about teaching more than flying? How about a person that has 250 hours TT, but has been a teacher for 10 years? That person could be the best flight instructor ever, but would have to wait to log an additional 250 hours. Nope – maybe instead of hours, they should require a teaching course similar to what Ron encourages.​

<B>

Sixth, no CFI-I certificate should be granted to any candidate who has not logged a minimum of 50 PIC hours in actual IFR conditions. Primacy of learning principle applies here as well.​

Seventh, an annual flight review should be required for all pilots logging less than 100 PIC hours in the previous 12 months.​

</B>

Again, could be very hard to come by – just because a person doesn’t spend much time in the soup doesn’t mean they don’t know the system inside and out. More time spent on dealing with ATC, making appropriate abnormal situation decisions, making better general decisions. I totally agree with law of primacy, but a II that has flown, and understands the system (even if it’s VFR conditions) should be able to teach the information correctly regardless of how much time they have in IMC.​

<B>

Seventh, an annual flight review should be required for all pilots logging less than 100 PIC hours in the previous 12 months.​

</B>

I’m okay with this too, although 100 hours might be pretty high...maybe less than 50 PIC in 12 months. ​

 

[gismo]

Get a block altitude and have at it. You are not training approaches at this point just actual IMC. (Climbing right turns, slow flight, Climbs, descents.) I did this in my training for VFR.

Dan

That's possible in some areas but not everywhere and quite possibly on a rather limited basis compared to the demand if such training were required by FAR. And there's a rather good chance that right in the middle of your training exercise you'll get a call from ATC putting you back on a hard altitude and a fixed vector. What's the student going to do then?