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

[MountainDude]

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:

1. Flying into IMC:
- Show student pilots what happens (and how quickly) if you fly into IMC (there are youtube videos).
- Emphasize they can always deviate to avoid clouds, even if they do not have time to get a vector from ATC. They should try to inform the ATC before they do it, but it's not a requirement if they are too busy.
- 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.
- Emphasize that VFR at night has a higher risk of flying into IMC.
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
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.
5. Experience plane performance at gross weight and/or with aft CG, and emphasize how it gets worse over gross and at higher DAs

 

[ateamer]

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.

 

[MountainDude]

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.

I am not arguing they are not taught; I argue they are not emphasized enough, such that they do not stick out as the fundamentals that pilots pay special attention to.

 

[idahoflier]

I am not arguing they are not taught; I argue they are not emphasized enough, such that they do not stick out as the fundamentals that pilots pay special attention to.

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.

 

[MountainDude]

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.

I think the evidence is clear from all the accident reports we see.

 

[Mikey52]

Darwin's theory is alive and well with anything to do with aviation.

 

[bflynn]

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

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

The accident statistics aren’t wrong.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

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.

 

[Witmo]

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.

I did all my initial training in a Cessna 150. We were always at max gross

 

[TCABM]

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…

Can you better define what system means?

.. I think someone should write an article about these topics, which we (CFIs, this forum, AOPA, EAA...) can then recommend to all new pilots.…

Is there nothing in existence today that already addresses these topics?

Integrating topics and learning events into the syllabus/learning path/lesson plan are the CFIs prerogative. If they don’t already exist, what is preventing you from doing exactly this? Write up a series of lesson plans, develop a training content outline, establish the performance standards for your curriculum, then market and sell it.

Gold Seal built what they believe is a better mouse trap, you can do the same.

 

[RussR]

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

Turning stalls are (usually, in my experience) tested on the Private checkride. The ACS allows for them and therefore CFIs should be training on them.

Accelerated stalls are on the Commercial checkride but not on the Private (they are only a knowledge item for the Private). I think they should be on both.

 

[Lindberg]

The argument that we must not teach these things well enough because if we taught them well enough, we wouldn't have accidents caused by not teaching them well enough, is a great example of begging the question.

 

[MountainDude]

Can you better define what system means?


Is there nothing in existence today that already addresses these topics?

Integrating topics and learning events into the syllabus/learning path/lesson plan are the CFIs prerogative. If they don’t already exist, what is preventing you from doing exactly this? Write up a series of lesson plans, develop a training content outline, establish the performance standards for your curriculum, then market and sell it.

Gold Seal built what they believe is a better mouse trap, you can do the same.

By the "system", I mean CFI training, syllabi, lesson plans, flight school ops... all parts of pilot training.
I don't have time to do this as I am busy trying to fix bigger societal problems.
Hopefully the Gold Seal program addresses these issues.

 

[MountainDude]

View attachment 135092

The argument that we must not teach these things well enough because if we taught them well enough, we wouldn't have accidents caused by not teaching them well enough, is a great example of begging the question.

The conclusion is not assumed. GA has a much higher rate of accidents than commercial ops, and a lot of that has to do with training. Ignorance is not bliss in this case.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

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.

For discussion sake, OP assumes a training cause (which is totally fair like a campfire, hangar, bar, or parking lot BS session). POA-on POAers!

 

[Dana]

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

When I was a cocky kid learning to fly, I had to do a "phase check" with a different CFI. He had me plan a XC flight to some airport I'd never been to maybe 50 miles away, I don't recall exactly. Then he kept procrastinating, finding other things to do, etc., told me I could cancel if I wanted, it was getting late in the afternoon. But I wanted to fly and get it done, I was getting annoyed with the delay, but finally he said, "OK, let's go," as it was getting dark. Of course I was unprepared for a night XC and got completely lost. After some time bumbling around he said, "Enough of this foolishness, let's go back." It sure took me down a notch, and we talked for several hours afterward about flying and life in general..

I don't know if he planned it that way from the beginning or legitimately got delayed and then wanted to see how I'd handle it, but either way it was a valuable lesson that I never forgot. Thanks, Roy Crawford.

 

[Lindberg]

The conclusion is not assumed. GA has a much higher rate of accidents than commercial ops, and a lot of that has to do with training. Ignorance is not bliss in this case.

Your evidence that there's a training problem is that there are the type of accidents caused by training problems. That's circular. You need to provide some evidence these accidents are caused by training problems.

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

 

[MauleSkinner]

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

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.

 

[Lindberg]

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.

 

[TCABM]

By the "system", I mean CFI training, syllabi, lesson plans, flight school ops... all parts of pilot training.
I don't have time to do this as I am busy trying to fix bigger societal problems.
Hopefully the Gold Seal program addresses these issues.

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.

 

[Witmo]

Your evidence that there's a training problem is that there are the type of accidents caused by training problems. That's circular. You need to provide some evidence these accidents are caused by training problems.

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.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The conclusion is not assumed. GA has a much higher rate of accidents than commercial ops, and a lot of that has to do with training. Ignorance is not bliss in this case.

A lot of it also has to do with the selection process.

 

[MountainDude]

Your evidence that there's a training problem is that there are the type of accidents caused by training problems. That's circular. You need to provide some evidence these accidents are caused by training problems.

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

Someone computes W&B very accurately for the airlines.
Also, if they calculate it wrongly, or they overload a plane, the consequences are going to be great.
This is why it does not happen.

 

[MountainDude]

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.

I am curious why this is. If the CFI is IR, why not take a student into IMC and let them try to maintain the vector?

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

Stalls in a turn and accelerated stalls are covered in private training but never experienced.

Turning stalls are certainly taught and experienced in our syllabus. Accelerated stalls are demonstrated.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I am curious why this is. If the CFI is IR, why not take a student into IMC and let them try to maintain the vector?

That’s not VFR-into-IMC. That’s IFR.

 

[idahoflier]

I think the evidence is clear from all the accident reports we see.

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?

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.

 

[Lindberg]

Someone computes W&B very accurately for the airlines.

They don't, actually; they estimate it. Nevertheless, where's your evidence that a deficit in pilot training relating to W&B explains the difference in accident rates between GA and "commercial" aviation (which technically includes most GA)?

 

[idahoflier]

The conclusion is not assumed. GA has a much higher rate of accidents than commercial ops, and a lot of that has to do with training. Ignorance is not bliss in this case.

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?

 

[Feh]

How to fuel up your plane and how to tie it down.

 

[Dana]

And how not to turn your plane (prop blast) when near other aircraft or an open hangar.

Don't they teach fueling and tying down any more? They did in the mid 1970s, and that was a 141 school. But then I was lucky and got the old guy instructor, instead of the puppy mill CFIs that made up most of the school's instructors.

My instructor also took me on an IFR flight... not hard IFR, in and out of the clouds on a grungy day, maybe 0.2 actual, but we filed and shot a couple of approaches. It was another valuable experience even though I never pursued an instrument rating.

 

[Tools]

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

Some absolutely do, all are quite involved in the process. The training you get under the veil of “performance” is very wt and balance centric. I’d say practically all 121 and 135 guys are VERY aware in this respect.

To wit: Literally used a whiz wheel for EVERY flight in a Saab 340. Many times you could carry more weight with a jumpseater… due to the forward shift in CG.

Common to see CRJ guys playing “what if” games with the FMS to maximize payload.

On the MD-80 it’s common to go into performance charts for optimal non standard flap settings to maximize payload.

 

[Lindberg]

To wit: Literally used a whiz wheel for EVERY flight in a Saab 340. Many times you could carry more weight with a jumpseater… due to the forward shift in CG.

You weighed all your passengers?

 

[kyleb]

"List 10 stupid pilot tricks which often have fatal consequences. Give an example of each. How do you avoid each of the 10? Due to your situation (airplane type, geography, intended use, etc.), which of the 10 are the most likely risks for you?"

 

[Tarheelpilot]

The conclusion is not assumed. GA has a much higher rate of accidents than commercial ops, and a lot of that has to do with training. Ignorance is not bliss in this case.

Is it possible that GA flying is actually more dangerous?

Let’s make a list:

Smaller aircraft
Loaded closer to performance limitations
Narrow cg envelopes
Hot/high has more effect
Less oversight
Lower requirements to participate

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

 

[Tools]

You weighed all your passengers?

Standard weights…. I used to could count by 185’s up to 34….

In the summer I could count by 175’s!

 

[Dana]

Standard weights…. I used to could count by 185’s up to 34….

In the summer I could count by 175’s!

And 195 for a round engine, er, person?

 

[bflynn]

Turning stalls are (usually, in my experience) tested on the Private checkride. The ACS allows for them and therefore CFIs should be training on them.

Accelerated stalls are on the Commercial checkride but not on the Private (they are only a knowledge item for the Private). I think they should be on both.

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.

 

[Jim_R]

Who can afford a simulator session every six months?

If you're talking Redbird, then your comment is well-taken.

But speaking as someone who usually does see a simulator every six months or so (BATD used for instrument currency), I can say those sessions with a CFII are a LOT cheaper--and more instructive/effective--than getting those approaches/hold in my plane with a safety pilot.

 

[TCABM]

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.

It’s an option in the Private ACS.

https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/private_airplane_acs_6.pdf