The Practical Test Standards was a great tool for its time but clearly represented the dominant view of psychology back in the 1970s; behaviorism. The sum total of human evaluation was what you could see from the outside. As we prepared for our CFI tests many years ago we all recited “learning is a change in behavior as a result of experience” to prepare for our CFI evaluations and humorously referred to the government CFI training manual as “good dog, bad dog.” If a testing standard is a presentation of what a good pilot should look like, the PTS was clearly a one-dimensional, black and white sketch of a three-dimensional, color world. Of course we all knew there was more and the manuals were evolving to reflect more modern practices. For me personally, Greg Brown’s original Savvy Flight Instructor book changed my whole world view of the instructor’s role and brought motivation and inner psychology into a more central role. The government manuals at the time still presented what you could see from the outside, how to “wiggled the stick”not think your way out of a problem. Good instructors, of course, always covered extensive cognitive topics…but these were not tested. As a consequence many unlucky pilots were trained without this “added value” and never developed higher order thinking skills like risk management.
And as a pilot examiner “back in the day” I remember writing out more than one temporary certificate (yes with a pen on carbon paper) for an applicant who had “performed” very well, but gave me a sense of unease. Though this new pilot clearly met the practical test standard, there were also most definitely missing elements that a safe pilot should know and consider; primarily judgement and thinking skills. And though as examiners we may counsel, advise (and pray) in the debrief, we are held to the legal government testing document. We give the “government’s test” and not some personal version. The PTS toolkit of the time did not include a lot of cognitive, risk management elements. As time passed, emphasis items in the PTS preface multiplied to reflect cognitive “best practices” but the PTS tool was outdated, limited and increasingly disjointed. The FAA manuals had evolved considerably over time but the testing standard had not.
The new Airman Certification Standard presents a more comprehensive vision of what a safe pilot should be. It includes the historic PTS skill elements but integrates the thinking skills of what a pilot should know and consider as well. There have been criticisms of its length (of course) but this document is designed to be more comprehensive. We now have a full color picture of a pilot rather than the PTS pencil sketch. And now that examiners have this tool to evaluate the whole pilot (skill, knowledge and judgement) the applicants as a group seem (to me) to be improving and better prepared to be safer, comprehensive pilots. In the past three months my pilot applicants, prepared to the new ACS, seem more thoughtful and well versed in the thinking/planning skills…because we can test this. Of course there will be some wrinkles to iron out in this new standard but it is a superior testing/training tool. My appreciation goes out to those who worked so hard to create this document (and endured the slings and arrows…) This is an ambitious move on the part of the FAA and a hopeful new step toward safer flying.
Please “follow” our SAFE blog to receive notification of new articles and also write us a comment if you see a problem (or want to contribute an article). We always need more input on aviation excellence or flight safety. There are many highly qualified SAFE members out there! If you are not yet a member, please Join SAFE and support our mission of generating aviation excellence in teaching and flying. Our amazing member benefits alone make this commitment worthwhile and fun.
And yet, parts of the ACS, most notably the slow flight issue augmented by the SAFO which seems to be pointing backwards to the “recover at the first recognition of an impending stall” standard, is clearly dumbing down basic stick & rudder skills. Testing for judgment and thinking skills is good; training and testing which fails in the basic motor skills department is bad.
I submit that both are necessary, if LOC, especially in the airport environment, is ever going to be reduced. Trading one for the other is doomed to failure.
Yes, SAFE has also spoken out very publicly criticizing the slow flight formulation in the new ACS: https://safeblog.org/2016/09/02/the-acs-slow-flight-controversy/ SAFE presented a six page recommendation at the recent ACS AWG that FAA responded favorable to…help is on the way?! Hopefully we will achieve a good compromise. Thanks for your comment!