New ACS. Old PTS. Theory or Fact Based?

[DR750S]

I know a lot has already been said about new ACS and old PTS. However, I'm just now coming to this matter and have only recently looked at both as "standards." My reason for making this post comes out of my first thread. I'm gathering information and concepts in an attempt to flesh out the bigger picture for what my training should look like. Quite simply, I'm going to be starting my flight training from private through multi-engine and then buying a twin turboprop at some point along the way. I won't be going through a Part 141 system, but I'm planing to work with a Part 61 Instructor who maps my training to my specific goals and requirements. So, any question I ask, is to help me build a bigger and hopefully more accurate picture of the long road ahead of me - at least conceptually.

You've probably already seen the video below. If not, then enjoy it. It is Rod Machado and John King, debating whether or not the changes from PTS to ACS will have the net positive impact on initial pilot training that its authors were seeking. I don't have a dog in the fight. What I hear Rod saying seems to make sense. But, what I hear John saying also seems to make sense. Can they both be right? I don't know the answer to that.

What I do know is that I am at the crux of making some final decisions about my own training (Private/Instrument/Multi-Engine). John, primarily talks about Managing Risk and how it should be part of Primary Training, essentially. Rod, primarily talks about Basic Skills Development and calls Risk Management a higher order mental process that does not necessarily belong in Primary Training. John says Basic Skills Development was not removed from Initial Training. Rod says Scenario Based Training won't help, as the student spends less time in training on Basic Skills Development.

They both make great arguments. I'm not sure why both Scenario Training and Skills Development have to be separated in Primary Flight Training anyway. It would seem as though both need to be stressed.

In the end, Rod, concludes that Private Pilots should not be expected to perform and think like Commercial Airline Pilots. And, John, concludes that getting a Private Pilot to the point where they are capable of thinking their way through a scenario is better than pilot who can't. Again, I think they both have good points.

What are your thoughts, if you don't mind sharing them. Because I will be working with an Instructor one-one-one, my flight training can be custom fit and made more flexible than a Part 141 environment in some important ways. So, this helps me to figure some of that out for myself, as well as what my Instructor ultimately has in his or her syllabus.

Thanks for the feedback! Here's the video:

 

[Vance Breese]

It appears to me you have no choice and must meet the ACS.

I don’t understand what you are after.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Rod was not particularly pleased when I said this on his Facebook page, but, the argument between he and John King is mostly a pi##ing contest. As you point out, skill and risk management are not mutually exclusive. They both need to be there. How you address putting them together is between you and your CFI.

As @Vance Breese already pointed out, the ACS is the testing standard. You don't get to choose between it and the superseded PTS.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

They are both right

Initially you should be focused on just learning how to fly. There is no point in your cfi blathering on about higher level decision making while you still don’t have basic skills to control the aircraft. Once you have those basic skills the ADM should start being introduced. The time line for you having developed enough basic skill set and start learning some of the higher order thinking would be before your solo.

I think most would consider all training prior to private checkride as primary or initial training. If that’s the definition of primary training then you should defiantly be taught the higher level thinking during primary training. I don’t think it should start from day one but it should be incorporated once you understand basic aircraft control.

 

[mscard88]

I think ADM can be concurrently accomplished as you train, gradually increasing by the time students get to the cross country phase which requires a lot of planning and decision making for a student. Agree with the others, forget the PTS, past history. ACS is what you have to meet and test on.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Keep in mind that the ACS is a testing standard, not a training syllabus. It doesn't say you CAN'T go out and do maneuvers-based training or fly the ragged edge between the sweat and the stall.

Nor does it determine what you can or can't do as a certificates pilot.

It's simply saying that on the day you take your checkride, this is what you have to do and the standard to which you have to do it.

 

[denverpilot]

They are both right.

Rod was correct about the stall and slow flight crap that got changed just being a hearing test, until FAA “clarified” their stance on it, however mildly.

I get it that FAA doesn’t want to teach people to ignore alarms, that’s bad.

There were other ways to do that while still getting the airplane slow enough people actually know what the area of reverse command really feels like.

The other significant PITA right now is the CFI ride. You’re taking a ride under the CFI PTS and teaching to the ACS. Was worse when the Commercial ACS wasn’t complete yet. “Mr DPE, are you an ACS student or a PTS student today?”

But it’s understandable in a roll out this big.

Anyone want to take bets on how many trees a copy of the CFI ACS will kill if printed out, once it’s released? That thing is going to be massive. It’ll look like a tax law book. Maybe we should start a pool?

 

[mscard88]

Anyone want to take bets on how many trees a copy of the CFI ACS will kill if printed out, once it’s released? That thing is going to be massive. It’ll look like a tax law book. Maybe we should start a pool?

Eh pine trees grow fast down south where the paper company have thousands of tree plantations.

 

[coloradobluesky]

It matters more what sort of CFI you have, what airplanes you have to train in and what sort of working relationship your CFI has with the DPE. ACS vs PTS difference is in the noise. (meaning, not much different). Even if they are different, so what? You will be doing what your instructor says and being evaluated by the DE. They will do what they do. You will do as trained. If THEY have their act together, so will you!

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

It would be silly to not consider both. You have. Now go out and learn how to fly.

Too much thinking might get in the way of learning.

 

[HAPPYDAN]

Just a couple of points I've gleaned from other flyers, regarding this same argument. The new ACS is applicable to Private pilot, but for Sport Pilot PTS is still in effect. Not sure about Recreational. Many DPEs apparently still use the PTS standards, as old habits die hard. It seems, thus far, implementation on ACS has created some confusion among all involved.

 

[Vance Breese]

Just a couple of points I've gleaned from other flyers, regarding this same argument. The new ACS is applicable to Private pilot, but for Sport Pilot PTS is still in effect. Not sure about Recreational. Many DPEs apparently still use the PTS standards, as old habits die hard. It seems, thus far, implementation on ACS has created some confusion among all involved.

You said you were after Private, Commercial and Multi Engine ratings.

I feel you will need to learn to satisfy ACS.

DPEs are pretty closely supervised so I doubt there are many DPEs not using ACS.

It is a change from PTS so naturally there is some resistance.

Rotorcraft- Gyroplane still uses PTS and I look forward to the change to ACS.

There are things in ACS that will make my job easier.

 

[DR750S]

It appears to me you have no choice and must meet the ACS.

I don’t understand what you are after.

Everything in life is connected. PTS was the standard for eons. ACS is now the new kid on the block. Lots of people wanted to know more than just the mechanical differences between the two, they wanted to know whether it makes better pilots. Since I'm about to submit myself to this process, I would naturally have the same kinds of questions and would hope that experienced and knowledgeable pilots ahead of me would understand the changes and have drawn some of their own conclusions - right or wrong, good or bad, substantive or unsubstantiated.

My goal is to hear what others who fit the profile (Experienced Pilots in the US) have to say about both the Debate and the conclusions that Rod and John draw from their own individual experiences in GA. The new ACS Standards must be met by the student pilot in order to be certificated under the new rules. However, I'm wondering how many instructors out there are use their own syllabus that goes beyond those standards in an effort to build a better pilot in the long run. This is ancillary to the development of a syllabus that will be used in my flight training. I would assume all syllabi contain the basic standards for certification, while adding additional training and/or information for purpose of building a better pilot. That last part may or may not be true. That's part of the reason why I'm asking the question. I want my flight instructor to feel free to build a better pilot in me - which might mean training to a level that is above and beyond the standards in certain ways.

In other words, how do you train to go out and run a 4 minute mile. You can pick a prescribed course of training and at some point you will hit your mile in 240 minutes flat. However, if you wanted a sub-4 minute mile that same training regimen you used to hit 240 minutes won't be enough. You'll need to add some kind of additional training that includes what you did before, but also goes above and beyond what you did before. I'm looking to exceed the Standard. I don't want to be average on purpose. They changed these training requirements for a reason. People were getting hurt at a rate they felt was too frequent per flight conducted and they mapped the causation to Initial Training and Currency. So, how do we know that ACS will solve that problem?

They say ACS will solve the problem, but that doing so will take time, tweaks and adjustments to the Standards. I thought that admission was very interesting. That says, they don't know for sure and that they are willing to add, modify, change, supplement or otherwise attempt to optimize the Standards to achieve lower accident rates per flight conducted. This tells me that it ain't perfect. I'm wondering if my flight instructor will recognize this, see what needs to be supplemented and then do the necessary implementations in my own training - all for the purpose of helping to produce a better pilot in me down range.

John says the student pilot can and should learn as a matter of initial training, to mitigate risk for the purpose of increasing safety of flight. Rod says you can't expect a student pilot to think that way so soon in their flying career. What say you?

 

[DR750S]

Rod was not particularly pleased when I said this on his Facebook page, but, the argument between he and John King is mostly a pi##ing contest. As you point out, skill and risk management are not mutually exclusive. They both need to be there. How you address putting them together is between you and your CFI.

So, ACS is the new Standard. That standard must be met by each applicant and no doubt, the student and instructor must train to that standard. Got it. But, what about the primary points they kept making even after that peed on each other in the process of making those highly relevant points?

- Teach the student pilot higher level critical thinking for safety of flight.
- Don't waste time on higher level critical thinking. Instead, spend that time grooving and honing basic piloting skill instead.

In all honesty, when I first heard them make their divergent arguments, I initially leaned towards Rod's way of thinking. But, then I thought about it and asked myself: "Why does Part 121 and Part 135 have a lower accident rate than Part 91?" That question to myself drove me back to John's point of view. What does 121/135 have that 91 does not have or does not do as well that makes them more effective for SOF? I began looking around and asking questions because I'm going to be one of those who belongs to 91, and they are suffering the highest rates of incidents among the three.

Some of the things I found were:

- 121/135 have more frequent training stints a mandatory throughout a pilots professional career
- 121/135 have more coordinated flight planning support attached specifically to things related to Weather and various Pilot Reports
- 121/135 have open door access to Level-D flight simulation running advanced/extreme scenarios that improve critical problem solving skills

I by no means have compiled a list of everything, but these were the things I've found as truths in my own research that separate 121/135 from 91. Are these the probably causes of the higher accident rates among the 91 community? How (if at all possible) can I as a soon to be member of 91, replicate or bring my own personal flying career closer to that which maps to the guys having lower accident rates?

I want to have fun, but I want to be as safe as possible doing it. Yes, I need to meet ACS. However, I'm wondering whether or not I can sit down with my instructor from the very beginning to hash out something that exceeds ACS in such a way that builds a more 121/135-like pilot in the future. That's what I'm really getting at here, and I thought this "debate" struck a nerve in me and caused me to think more deeply about the question in general term.

I am going to be a member of 91. 91 has the highest incident rates. ACS is required, but does it really get at the core problem associated with higher accident rates. What am I really getting myself into here. These are the kinds of questions on my mind these days. I think about this stuff all the time now.

 

[Vance Breese]

The practical tests and knowledge tests have always been changing. Someone felt that they were making a significant change so they changed the name. I was a very big effort managed by a fairly small group of people.

Only time will tell if it is better.

It is curious to anyone who looks at the NTSB reports why the accident chain happens. The effort to understand the cause and mitigate it is ongoing.

The airlines have done very well with formalized risk mitigation procedures.

Stick and rudder skills and risk mitigation are not an either or.

A good flight instructor will help you achieve both unless you resist his efforts.

You don’t get to be a pilot until you meet ACS.

As a pilot you will discover that few things are black or white.

I professional CFI will have studied this at considerable length and will come up with a plan suited to you.

Not all CFIs are equal.

 

[DR750S]

The time line for you having developed enough basic skill set and start learning some of the higher order thinking would be before your solo.

Thanks!

So, you set the threshold at the Solo. Very interesting. Anybody else have a differing opinion on where that threshold should be set - or does everyone basically agree that Solo time is about right?

I don’t think it should start from day one but it should be incorporated once you understand basic aircraft control.

Thanks again!

By "basic aircraft control," are you talking Pitch-Power-Trim, Power-Pitch-Trim, Roll-Power-Trim and Power-Roll-Trim to maintain any of the five (5) normal flight conditions (straight and level, climbing level, descending level, climbing turn and descending turn)? So, for example - instructor says to student: "Turn heading 281 while climbing 3,800 feet and maintain 80 knots." If the student demonstrates the correct inputs (Roll-Power-Trim in this case) to blend heading change, rate of climb and airspeed into a seamless and fluid maneuver of the aircraft, would that be considered a student who might be ready for higher order thinking in the cockpit (assuming he could do the same with the other 4 normal flight conditions)?

 

[DR750S]

I think ADM can be concurrently accomplished as you train, gradually increasing by the time students get to the cross country phase which requires a lot of planning and decision making for a student.

This is partly why I ask this question. We already have two differing viewpoints. Mscard, how would you blend mastering aircraft control in normal flight conditions with teaching ADM concurrently? For example - if I'm still struggling with the concept of controlling airspeed using Pitch inputs while in a descent and I begin a stronghold focus on doing that during a lesson, but I'm having difficulty as airspeed increases without fully understanding why, how do I shift my focus on to something else related to ADM in that moment?

I'm trying to keep my question as real world as possible. This is the kind of stuff I'll want to know about how my CFI approaches training before settling down with him or her for the long haul training process. This is exactly why I made this thread. If my CFI believes they can teach a certain way (whether Rod's way, John's way or a Hybrid method), I'd like to understand how they come to that conclusion. Thanks for the reply!

 

[Vance Breese]

I have clients making aviation decisions in the first hour of instruction.

We plan the mission together and gather information to make decisions.

We do clearing turns and look for traffic in a methodical way.

From the beginning they are responsible for a preflight inspection and estimate hours of fuel on board.

Have a look at FAR 61.87 Solo requirements for student pilots.

I won’t solo someone until they can demonstrate judgement, decision making and aircraft control.

I am speaking only for myself.

 

[steingar]

I have the strongest feeling that whatever they call the approach the written test will have dumb**** questions over trivialities, and you can still get hung at the oral for nonsense. Its the same guys administering the system. Nothing really changes. The sooner you realize that the sooner your blood pressure will fall and the more effective the alcohol will be.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks!

So, you set the threshold at the Solo. Very interesting. Anybody else have a differing opinion on where that threshold should be set - or does everyone basically agree that Solo time is about right?

If you try to establish a time-based threshold, I think you miss the point. Flight training is a progression, not a beginning or an end. That's true of both skill and risk management. Pilots learn new skills, new techniques and develop better judgment as time goes on. I've told this story in other contexts, but I was once checking out a a pilot in a rental 172. Coming back to the airport with N-S and E-W runways, the Tower cleared us to land on the main N-S one, with a substantial crosswind. My friend said I might need to help him with the landing. Instead I said, "Why don't you ask the Tower for the other runway?" The idea never even crossed his mind. That was a lesson in pure risk management. Punchline: the pilot was a 20,000+ hour retired airline pilot.

IMO, of necessity, the first few lessons need to focus on fundamental maneuvers. There is not much to make good decisions about it you don't know what you are doing to begin with. No context. At the same time, I used the term "focus" purposefully. Sure, by the time a student is let loose into the practice area solo and especially when doing solo cross countries, the risk management part of training should be well underway, but there are always opportunities to discuss decision-making, from the very first lesson. "No, we are not going to do the introductory lesson today. It's too windy. You won't like being bumped around and, even if you do, there's no benefit from it this early in training" is a lesson on pilot decision-making and risk management. On a dual cross countries, I almost always did diversions, based on a simple scenario. Teaches the decision to go elsewhere and where, the need to have potential alternatives to the course of flight, in mind, and the skill to execute the diversion.

 

[DR750S]

It's simply saying that on the day you take your checkride, this is what you have to do and the standard to which you have to do it.

Very clear. Thank you!

 

[DR750S]

They are both right.

This is getting interesting! Thanks for checking in on the subject.

Rod was correct about the stall and slow flight crap that got changed just being a hearing test, until FAA “clarified” their stance on it, however mildly.

Indicating that the system of flight training should be concerned with making sure students understand better, stalls and slow flight? I'm just trying to clarify your position in my mind.

I get it that FAA doesn’t want to teach people to ignore alarms, that’s bad.
There were other ways to do that while still getting the airplane slow enough people actually know what the area of reverse command really feels like.

Question: In practical and useful terms, would it be fair to call the region of reverse command an airspeed and angle of attack combination that results in a condition that requires more power than the aircraft has to offer and if not corrected will result in a condition where a full-power-on aerodynamic stall will take place at some point in the very near future?

I find the region of reverse command to be one of the most fascinating concepts I've come across in my personal aviation study. There you potentially have an aircraft hanging on the edge of performance at a bizarre combination of Slow Airspeed, High Angle of Attack and Gobs of Power. Yet, the airplane could still stall. Or, you could have an airplane that continues to climb into ever decreasing pressure altitude such that (yet again) a higher angle of attack is required with gobs of power, ungodly air speeds and still the aircraft could stall because drag overcomes lift. If I understand it correctly (let me know where I got it wrong), this makes the subject very interesting indeed. It is proof that Power means nothing at the wrong end of the Lift/Drag ratio. Probably not a nice place to be for a pilot.

 

[DR750S]

It matters more what sort of CFI you have, what airplanes you have to train in and what sort of working relationship your CFI has with the DPE. ACS vs PTS difference is in the noise. (meaning, not much different). Even if they are different, so what? You will be doing what your instructor says and being evaluated by the DE. They will do what they do. You will do as trained. If THEY have their act together, so will you!

"If." That's a pretty big word these days. I'm working on finding the right CFI and the right airplane for training. So, you hit the nail squarely on the head and confirmed what I had been thinking all along about BOTH. Thank you!

 

[HAPPYDAN]

You said you were after Private, Commercial and Multi Engine ratings.

I feel you will need to learn to satisfy ACS.

DPEs are pretty closely supervised so I doubt there are many DPEs not using ACS.

It is a change from PTS so naturally there is some resistance.

Rotorcraft- Gyroplane still uses PTS and I look forward to the change to ACS.

There are things in ACS that will make my job easier.

Hey Vance - You've got the wrong guy! I've been unsuccessfully chasing a Sport Pilot (Airplane) rating for about 5 years now, 95 hours, soloed twice but still no dice. Sucks to be 67 and half-blind, but I finally have the time and money, just no luck!

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I have clients making aviation decisions in the first hour of instruction.

We plan the mission together and gather information to make decisions.

We do clearing turns and look for traffic in a methodical way.

From the beginning they are responsible for a preflight inspection and estimate hours of fuel on board.

Have a look at FAR 61.87 Solo requirements for student pilots.

I won’t solo someone until they can demonstrate judgement, decision making and aircraft control.

I am speaking only for myself.

Of course you are but in the beginning they are not making those decisions. They are learning by watching you make them. If you put a student in a scenario based training environment on day one they would have no idea how to make a decision. I agree they should be making their own decisions by solo.

 

[DR750S]

It would be silly to not consider both. You have. Now go out and learn how to fly.

Too much thinking might get in the way of learning.

Thank you and I understand your point. I've got a few more subjects to gain some conceptual understanding of first, but I really do want to get out there and start training. I just don't want to blindly walk into it. I'm trying to peek behind the curtain just a bit, to see what the Wizard is wearing.

For example: METARs, TFRs and NOTAMs will be next. Gonna spend a little time getting familiar with the concepts. How to use them. When to use them. Which one(s) to use. Hopefully, I'll be able to get some questions answered here! At some point soon, I'm going to start trading Time for actual usable Knowledge during flight training. The more time I spend gaining at least a conceptual overview, the more time I'll have to spend on converting that information obtained through training into usable and integrated knowledge. As another fine example: How do the METARs and NOTAMs apply to flight planning, risk reduction and overall safety of flight? And, should I always obtain METARs and NOTAMs for each flight I make, or can I bypass them for certain types of flights?

Not trying to get all the facts and details at this point. Just a little taste of the flavor that awaits and some good clues about where these pieces of the puzzle fit into the larger mosaic of safe flying. Big picture stuff at this level. That's all I'm doing right now.

From private/instrument/multi-engine/type rating flight training, personal time building, aircraft ownership, aircraft maintenance, insurance requirements, aircraft hanger availability (locally), practical use of the aircraft, aircraft operating costs (YoY), tax concerns, etc.. I really do need a big picture view of what I'm getting myself into, before I dive in with both feet. I have tons of genuine interest in flying. I'm also doing bit more than just getting a "Private Pilots License." What I need is to put a small amount of meat on them bones before tossing them on the grill. I need that Big Picture framework, so that during my training and time building I can know when/if I've been blown off course.

This is more like a really big life-goal process with lots of big steps along the way. I need a vision map for that and that's what this process is all about for me at this juncture. I'd like to pick up a book from someone who has already done it. If anyone knows of such a book, please advise. Thank you!

 

[DR750S]

You said you were after Private, Commercial and Multi Engine ratings.

I feel you will need to learn to satisfy ACS.

DPEs are pretty closely supervised so I doubt there are many DPEs not using ACS.

It is a change from PTS so naturally there is some resistance.

Rotorcraft- Gyroplane still uses PTS and I look forward to the change to ACS.

There are things in ACS that will make my job easier.

ACS has been accused of extending DPE check-rides and initial or primary training hours well beyond the national average of about 60+. Is there any truth to that from your point of view? In the video, I think John makes the claim that some DPE check rides were taking up to 4 hours. Rod then fires back and says the check ride should be no more than 30 minutes. There is a huge gap between 30 mins and 4 hours. If I were a student pilot, I'd be wondering exactly what I was missing between the 30 minute check ride and the multi-hour long check ride, FWIW.

 

[DR750S]

As a pilot you will discover that few things are black or white.

I professional CFI will have studied this at considerable length and will come up with a plan suited to you.

Not all CFIs are equal.

Thanks. That's good information to know. Honestly, I would have thought Black & White were the key hallmarks of flying in US airspace. That's somewhat surprising to hear and it really makes me think. I thought the system was air tight, rock solid and bullet proof. Of course, this is why I ask the questions!

 

[James331]

It appears to me you have no choice and must meet the ACS.

I don’t understand what you are after.

For the test.

But you can still be trained beyond its limitations and short falls, I'd imagine most good CFIs will still teach real slow flight and full stalls, but remind their students of what the test wants to see.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Thank you and I understand your point. I've got a few more subjects to gain some conceptual understanding of first, but I really do want to get out there and start training. I just don't want to blindly walk into it. I'm trying to peek behind the curtain just a bit, to see what the Wizard is wearing.

For example: METARs, TFRs and NOTAMs will be next. Gonna spend a little time getting familiar with the concepts. How to use them. When to use them. Which one(s) to use. Hopefully, I'll be able to get some questions answered here! At some point soon, I'm going to start trading Time for actual usable Knowledge during flight training. The more time I spend gaining at least a conceptual overview, the more time I'll have to spend on converting that information obtained through training into usable and integrated knowledge. As another fine example: How do the METARs and NOTAMs apply to flight planning, risk reduction and overall safety of flight? And, should I always obtain METARs and NOTAMs for each flight I make, or can I bypass them for certain types of flights?

Not trying to get all the facts and details at this point. Just a little taste of the flavor that awaits and some good clues about where these pieces of the puzzle fit into the larger mosaic of safe flying. Big picture stuff at this level. That's all I'm doing right now.

From private/instrument/multi-engine/type rating flight training, personal time building, aircraft ownership, aircraft maintenance, insurance requirements, aircraft hanger availability (locally), practical use of the aircraft, aircraft operating costs (YoY), tax concerns, etc.. I really do need a big picture view of what I'm getting myself into, before I dive in with both feet. I have tons of genuine interest in flying. I'm also doing bit more than just getting a "Private Pilots License." What I need is to put a small amount of meat on them bones before tossing them on the grill. I need that Big Picture framework, so that during my training and time building I can know when/if I've been blown off course.

This is more like a really big life-goal process with lots of big steps along the way. I need a vision map for that and that's what this process is all about for me at this juncture. I'd like to pick up a book from someone who has already done it. If anyone knows of such a book, please advise. Thank you!

I think you’ll be fine, if not over prepared and maybe even to where you’ll be totally unprepared for what it’s actually like, cuz you so much expected one thing. If you’re like me, you’ll over read and over study. That’s why I said just fly. Wanna book? Order “Stick & Rudder”. Re-read it as you go thru training.

 

[DR750S]

Have a look at FAR 61.87 Solo requirements for student pilots.

Thank you! Just read it for the first time and it raises some interesting questions. One of the most interesting questions in my mind about 61.87 is whether or not it mimics or echoes what the DPE check-ride will be all about, roughly 20-40 training hours into the future of that student pilot?

I won’t solo someone until they can demonstrate judgement, decision making and aircraft control.

Very interesting, because that seems to be the entire debate right there. Nowhere in 61.87 does it mention the words "judgement" or "decision making" in connection with stated demonstrated proficiency of the student pilot. Yet, this seems to be very much in-line with what John referred to in the video as being necessary and now part of ACS. At the very same time, it would seem that Rod's point about focusing on skills development would result in a student pilot who would be more inclined to demonstrate exactly what you say you need in order to move them to the next level: Judgement, Decision Making and Aircraft Control.

That is the kind of CFI mindset that appeals to me the most. One who can look at the FARs, look at ACS, look at and understand where the student pilot is attempting to go in their personal flying career and then come up with an approach that meets all those concerns. Tough job for the CFI, no doubt. But, hey! That's why the CFI rakes in all the dough!

Actually, if my CFI turns out to be that good and could do all those four things - I'd easily pay them a premium and bonus. Some people just want a Private ticket and go up on fair weather days in the spring and summer months. Others want to fly high performance turbines for business and personal reasons and in all-weather conditions (within the limits of IFR). Those are going to be two different kinds of pilots in the long run. I suspect they will need two different kinds of training parameters, two different kinds of time building periods and two completely different kinds of aircraft for those time building periods.

 

[Vance Breese]

In my opinion even for single engine airplane there are lots of things that require the demonstration of judgement. I started to detail them until I realized every part of it requires a demonstration of judgement and aviation decision making.

(1) Received and logged flight training for the maneuvers and procedures of this section that are appropriate to the make and model of aircraft to be flown; and (2) Demonstrated satisfactory proficiency and safety, as judged by an authorized instructor, on the maneuvers and procedures required by this section in the make and model of aircraft or similar make and model of aircraft to be flown. (d) Maneuvers and procedures for pre- solo flight training in a single-engine airplane. A student pilot who is receiving training for a single-engine airplane rating or privileges must receive and log flight training for the following maneuvers and procedures: (1) Proper flight preparation procedures, including preflight planning and preparation, powerplant operation, and aircraft systems; (2) Taxiing or surface operations, including runups; (3) Takeoffs and landings, including normal and crosswind; (4) Straight and level flight, and turns in both directions; (5) Climbs and climbing turns; (6) Airport traffic patterns, including entry and departure procedures; (7) Collision avoidance, windshear avoidance, and wake turbulence avoidance; (8) Descents, with and without turns, using high and low drag configurations; (9) Flight at various airspeeds from cruise to slow flight; (10) Stall entries from various flight attitudes and power combinations with recovery initiated at the first indication of a stall, and recovery from a full stall; (11) Emergency procedures and equipment malfunctions;

As you gain experience you will make better aviation decisions. In my experience the DPE will discontinue the practical test if you fail at aviation decision making.

Take something simple like entering the pattern. If you don’t enter the pattern correctly or fly the wrong pattern that demonstrates poor aviation decision making.

Get too low in a ground reference maneuver and the test is discontinued.

In my opinion ACS is just a different name and a slightly different approach to PTS.

Scenario based training is very popular.

My commercial practical test was PTS and yet in included scenario based instructions and required ADM. I was asked to fly a mission that the aircraft I was flying was not legally allowed to fly. The altitude required was beyond the limitations in the POH. I would need to fly closer to thunderstorms than I was willing to fly and through a MOA.

Something I feel is important to remember is that you can take the practical test until you pass it.

 

[Sinistar]

It is very easy to get wrapped up in all this theory...as an easy excuse to never actually start your training.

PTS vs ACS: I'm a newbie and in my very limited pilot life (11 months as of now) I have only been under the ACS. That's all you'll know too.

Come checkride day, one of the first things DPE says "This test will adhere to the ACS standards." He takes out a large printed checklist...the very same ACS list I was using. No debate or theory or videos or treatises, just the requirement.

There's another poster on here who has been going on and on about topics not unlike this. I honestly think it is not productive at your point (no training yet). Why dance around actually starting training.

From your other thread you appear to have plenty of money and time. So you basically have no real reasons to not get started tomorrow. Change your life...instead of talking about it...take that first lesson.

 

[Sundancer]

Crock of poo, 90% of it, ACS, vice PTS. Learning the physical skill is primary. Learning "ADM"? Poo. Poo. There is nothing unique about it, as compared to handling a boat or shaving a Wookie's junk. . .attention, care, due diligence, appreciation of consequences, self discipline, and overcoming/recognizing self deception and personal limitations. It's a bureacratic exercise (ACS), with some value, but not compelling. Bet a cheeseburger it ends up not making a groats worth of diffrence.

Why do pros have a lower accident rate? Uhhhh, they are pros. Flying often, and recency of experience is at least as important as total experience. It also helps to have APs, FMS', etc.

It may be the GA accident rate is already as low as it should be, as if anyone actually knew the real rate. . .we are flying lightweight aircraft in an atmosphere that routinely can overwhelm the physical limits of our airplanes - wind, ice, vis, T-storms, etc. We lack redundancy in systems; we lack manuverability in the vertical plane - we can't go up, or down,very fast, lest we lose control, or pull the wings off. We can wring our hands, spend a while lot more money, add a lot more empty shirts to the FAA kingdom, and saddle ourselves with a few more layers of bureacracy, and maybe (or not) see a marginal improvement.

I guess someone feels a need to "do something" because sometimes planes crash, and it's usually the pilot's fault. Me, I'd rather it was always the pilot's fault. That means the plane can't kill me, only I can.

Funny irony, that while all accidents are avoidable, some are inevitible. That's human. If we want to learn, experience, enjoy, be thrilled and awed, that means some of us are gonna get squished. Usually the less prepared or capable, but occasionally a sharp, but momentarily impaired, individual.

 

[denverpilot]

Question: In practical and useful terms, would it be fair to call the region of reverse command an airspeed and angle of attack combination that results in a condition that requires more power than the aircraft has to offer and if not corrected will result in a condition where a full-power-on aerodynamic stall will take place at some point in the very near future?

I find the region of reverse command to be one of the most fascinating concepts I've come across in my personal aviation study. There you potentially have an aircraft hanging on the edge of performance at a bizarre combination of Slow Airspeed, High Angle of Attack and Gobs of Power. Yet, the airplane could still stall. Or, you could have an airplane that continues to climb into ever decreasing pressure altitude such that (yet again) a higher angle of attack is required with gobs of power, ungodly air speeds and still the aircraft could stall because drag overcomes lift. If I understand it correctly (let me know where I got it wrong), this makes the subject very interesting indeed. It is proof that Power means nothing at the wrong end of the Lift/Drag ratio. Probably not a nice place to be for a pilot.

No.

This is easier to demo in the airplane than discuss in text, but the misconception you have is that the airplane will stall when flying in the region of reversed command.

It can fly all day there, barring the engine overheating from low forward airspeed.

However if the throttle is already at full power and no altitude is being gained, altitude must be traded to recover to normal cruise flight.

Go fly. You won’t “get it” completely without doing it.

"If." That's a pretty big word these days. I'm working on finding the right CFI and the right airplane for training. So, you hit the nail squarely on the head and confirmed what I had been thinking all along about BOTH. Thank you!

There’s a number out there. Reading online hubris would make one think that good CFIs are as rare as hen’s teeth. I’m super new at it and will probably make some mistakes with students but they’ll still have to meet certain knowledge and skills standards to get past me to get to the examiner, and then get past the examiner.

I’ve been flying long enough I can pass on some tips a CFI who started flying a couple of years ago instead of a couple of decades ago, can’t. But that other CFI can adequately prepare people for their checkrides too.

Here’s a concept that may be a help. NOBODY who earns a Private certificate knows everything they need to know about flying. Many people colloquially call the Private certificate, “a license to learn”.

An initial rating at the Private level means essentially that FAA has said you meet the MINIMUM standard as defined by them, to carry yourself and passengers aloft.

One can always train to higher than minimum standards in any activity. And experience counts too.

An advanced student in their own airplane can certainly outfly my ass in it. But I can still teach them things they don’t know yet. (In fact a prepared and skilled advanced student is a joy to teach.)

A primary student, no. They would kill themselves without an instructor present.

ACS has been accused of extending DPE check-rides and initial or primary training hours well beyond the national average of about 60+. Is there any truth to that from your point of view? In the video, I think John makes the claim that some DPE check rides were taking up to 4 hours. Rod then fires back and says the check ride should be no more than 30 minutes. There is a huge gap between 30 mins and 4 hours. If I were a student pilot, I'd be wondering exactly what I was missing between the 30 minute check ride and the multi-hour long check ride, FWIW.

Checkrides weren’t 30 minutes when I did my first one in 1991, squarely under PTS, so Rod’s exaggerating his point a little bit. If you count arriving at the airport and paperwork and all that stuff, most run half a day-ish no matter what. 4 hours might be long for JUST the oral portion, but it could happen.

Come prepared, it goes quicker. Come poorly prepared, it’ll drag out as the examiner digs into your head a bit. The really log ones are usually candidates who are marginal but barley manage to drag answers out of their heads. Most examiners say they can tell in the first fifteen minutes if a candidate is prepared.

It’s very hard to trick someone with their experience levels. If they see someone answering correctly but “oddly” they might dig in for a while and make sure they’re not just miscommunicating in some way with the candidate.

Officially by the clock by longest oral to date was my CFI initial, as it should be. Before that it was the Instrument rating oral but a solid 50% of it was shooting the breeze.

The examiner was satisfied I was prepared for the oral very early on and he weather was supposed to get better as the day progressed. Winds were high that morning, so the examiner kindly stalled. He didn’t have to. He could have made me flog the airplane around in high winds and beat us both up. No point in doing that. Even examiners know how to apply decision making skills.

And the winds did NOT come down. When I said I wanted to preflight the airplane he looked at me like I was insane. What he didn’t know was I was going to cancel and ask for a Discontinuance right after that. Why?

Because credit for the pre-flight logged in IACRA meant an even shorter checkride the next day! Work the system! “I’ll pre-flight and then we will decide.” He walked out in the wind and said, “What do you think?” I said, “Not flying today. Wanted to give it 15 more minutes to calm down. It’s not going to.”

He smiled. He knew what I was up to. We filed out the Discontinuance paperwork and scheduled half a day to finish up. All I had to do then was get the airplane safely into the sky and fly the approaches the next day. Done.

From your other thread you appear to have plenty of money and time. So you basically have no real reasons to not get started tomorrow. Change your life...instead of talking about it...take that first lesson.

This. Go fly. Interview a few CFIs and pick one that seems to have a plan and you get along with. You’re not going to know what you don’t know even about how to evaluate whether a particular CFI works for you, until you’ve flown with a few. You could find the best teacher on the planet and not get along with them personally for whatever reason. So just go find out.

I learn something every flight. If you go into it with that attitude and earn the first certificate, a whole lot more of the book knowledge you’re focusing on will make a lot more sense. It’s impossible to learn to fly from a book. You have to go experience it.

More people fire CFIs over scheduling and other much more boring issues than the CFI not being able to teach them anything. And sometimes those who fire CFIs end up firing multiple because they’re not willing to listen to any of them. Ha. Seen that too.

There’s always exceptions to generalities but really, just head over to the airport and pick a school and walk in and meet some people, grab a CFI and go up. You’ll know more about all of it about two hours later. And you can have every FAA certificate and rating they offer and still be learning many years from now.

So... pick someone and go. If you want to be a pilot, you need to go to the airport. Not forums. Not every aviation book and website. They’re just the “supporting cast”.

Or as Warren Miller used to say in his ski films, “Go do it this year, or you’ll just be another year older when you do.”

That first certificate earns you the privilege of being Pilot in Command. Nothing we talk about here will move that goal along faster than a trip to the airport will.

You obviously enjoy the subject matter. Time to go learn to apply it.

 

[BarryCooper]

Sometimes people just simply think too much

 

[MauleSkinner]

Sometimes people just simply think too much

Unfortunately, more often than not the reverse is true.

 

[mscard88]

In my opinion ACS is just a different name and a slightly different approach to PTS.

Scenario based training is very popular.

.

That's all it is, you nailed it. I forget what it was called before PTS, but we probably betched about the PTS when it came out too. Human nature, resistance to change. ACS is what the OP will have to comply with. Forget the PTS, waste of time. Go up for a Discovery flight or three and get started. All this crazy typing you're doing on here and your questions will be answered by actually flying. Time to go walk the walk. Good luck, you're gonna love it!