Our daily lives are determined by habits. We see the world through stereotypes and operate on scripts generated from our values and historical experiences. These “cultural influences” are notoriously hard to change.
Similarly, larger institutional endeavors, like flight training, become frozen in “the way we have always done it,” without a fresh view of the entire process from first principles. How would we arrange flight training if we approached it as a “clean sheet?” We seldom have the opportunity or motivation to examine these implicit “guiding rules” that control our lives. We complain about problems like efficiency and safety when our systems may actually be the cause.
The current “FAA 141 modernization” initiative is an opportunity to think creatively about *all* flight training and change some really stupid procedures we have unfortunately accepted as essential. ” Why do we teach pilots stalls (and terrify them) before we teach rudder control?” “Why do we organize courses: PPL (VFR), then IFR, then Commercial (back to VFR)?” “Are the 10 hours of ‘Commercial Complex’ of any use at all?” “With LOC as the primary fatal accident cause, wouldn’t greater skill training in basic maneuvering be a better focus?”
If you could wave a magic wand and change how we teach flying, what changes would *you* make? Here are some essential modifications that would instantly improve flight training and result in more effective learning, a reduced drop-out rate, and safer, more confident pilots.
Move Initial Stall Training After Ground Reference!
If you look at the sequence of maneuvers in most Private Pilot Syllabi, the order of introduction is totally opposed to the FAA “building block” theory. Why do we teach stalls, which require accurate rudder control for success, before learners are comfortable in the plane and have mastered rudder control? Learners experiencing stalls too early (usually on Lesson Three) are not yet even comfortable in flight and certainly can’t use the rudder effectively. Yet we subject them to stalls (with predictable results) and terrify them. No learning occurs with extreme fear, and many people end up quitting training as a result. Wouldn’t it make more sense to teach ground reference (adding the vertical aspect of “patterns in the sky”) *BEFORE* we teach stalls? There are no skills in ground reference that require stalls; these blocks of training are easily interchangeable.
Look at the initial 1940s Civilian Pilot Training which had stalls way back in Lesson 11. Someone reordered this sequence and it unfortunately became “institutionalized!” The only modern syllabus with this sensible organization is the King Schools Private Syllabus. Their syllabus requires mastery of climbing and descending turns before introducing stalls on Lesson 6. All syllabi should be similarly constructed with ground reference (and climbing and descending turns) *BEFORE* stalls. Every independent CFI or school that has reordered their training in this manner reports much better student retention and skill development; no student stall PTSD. After learners are more comfortable, confident, and fly coordinated – their stall experience is not terrifying. Actual learning occurs in this phase of flight and pilots exhibit faster and more comprehensive learning.
Since most pilots already have (useless) “complex,” teach “Extended Envelope” Instead!
The current Commercial Pilot’s “complex training” in 61.129 is a useless joke. Most learners in modern flight schools already have 10 hours “complex time” (glass-panel airplanes w/autopilot). The current “complex training” requirement adds *NOTHING* to their skills! “Real complex” airplanes with retractable gear, and constant speed props were eliminated after the ERAU Arrow accident. I remember talking with AFS-800 at Sun ‘N Fun in 2018 about this impending change. “Commercial training” as it now exists is unfortunately just “Private Pilot 2.0!”
These learners should be acquiring a higher level of VFR skills – as was originally intended. This should include “eyes outside, yank and bank” training. I suggest advanced control skills such as SAFE’s “Extended Envelope Maneuvers.“These are required for airline pilots under CFR Part 121.423 with every recurrent training. This program would immediately increase commercial pilot skill, confidence, and safety. It would also prepare them for the commercial maneuvers like chandelles and lazy eights that follow. This training could hypothetically be combined with some UPRT training or tailwheel for comprehensive aircraft control. But there is no benefit at all to the current “complex training” as it is practiced; we are missing an important opportunity to address the LOC safety problem.
Most private pilots cannot perform coordinated climbing turns left and right. Consequently, 89.3% of pattern stalls are on take-off and turn out. LOC is a problem because pilots only experience 10% of the flight training envelope (what a missed opportunity). I developed the EET maneuvers as a “detox” for instrument training. 40-50 hours of IFR training with gentle turns and eyes inside made commercial training a challenge.
Commercial After Private (Higher level VFR) *Then* IFR
It makes no sense to go from Private (maneuvering eyes outside), followed by Instrument (eyes totally inside and gentle control usage), then back to outside reference (Commercial)? The only reason for this goofy organization is the FAA requirement for 250 (190 in 141) total hours for certification. This change would require regulation changes to avoid high costs of hour-building. Military training proceeds in this sensible manner. Their VFR proceeds to an advanced level before instrument is integrated and *all* pilots become “all-weather” capable. In civilian training instrument was added after private for recreational pilots not continuing their training. In academy flight training programs the IFR provides the extra hours required for commercial certification.
Historically, a flight instructor certificate did not require an instrument rating. Pilots seeking a professional career trained private, commercial, and CFI (IFR was added later). All initial training was consistently “eyes outside VFR;” which made real sense.
Eliminate “Performing the Duties of Pilot In Command!”
PDPIC is the most damaging capitulation the FAA has ever succumbed to. Allowing “solo time” to be flown with an instructor in the right seat eliminates all the benefits of these essential character-building requirements. This leads to CFIs graduating with only 10 hours of “real solo” and a total lack of confidence and command authority in these pilots. Many large flight schools will not even allow their CFIs to fly solo to ferry planes. Nothing builds resilience and self-efficacy like a well-prepared learner flying real solo time; meeting and overcoming real challenges.
This lowered bar of challenge encourages bottom-feeder flight schools to send poorly-prepared learners to accomplish these events without proper preparation. The standard should be “Would you send this pilot (real) SOLO – without the warm fuzzy in the right seat – on a 300nm X-C (or is this really a “crew mission?”) Combining PDPIC with the lack of “real complex” flight training has made the commercial pilot certificate “Private Pilot 2.0.” We can do a lot better (and make superior, safer pilots) with some thoughtful changes. Every school and professional CFI can insist on a higher standard for safer pilots.. Fly safely out there (and often)!
Pictures from SAFE Sun ‘N Fun HERE. Please participate (and win) the SAFE Spring Sweepstakes. Get a chance by joining, upgrading to “sustaining” membership, or just donating $15 to our SAFE CFI Scholarship.
Win a $1,200 Lightspeed “Delta Zulu” headset, an Aerox O2 system or a Sporty’s PJ2 handheld radio!
Dang, that makes a lot of sense. Teaching stalls before a student can make coordinated turns does seem counter productive.
I had a fair amount of PIC experience with quite a bit of XC when I started working on instrument. My instructor was a kid working on his 1500 hours. Used to drive him crazy with some of my instinctive flying skills because he had really never explored the envelope.
Not sure I’d want to fly with a CFI who only had 10 hours solo.
I think you are on the right track David. I know that, if I were running things, I would take a page from the military and require the UPRT and aerobatic (including spin) stage checks prior to first solo. Nearly every once of my CFI candidate students who have come to me for my spin program have said to me, “I wish I had had this training back when I first started. Now I understand all this stuff.” So, add UPRT to primary training before solo, then roll the commercial requirements into the primary (PPSEL). Finally, then do instrument.
And before you say, “You are going to scare people off,” I think that we need to spend a LOT more time on basic stick-and-rudder skills prior to taking the student back to the pattern for solo. The more you expand their “personal envelope” early on, the less likely they are to suffer from fear, startle, and freeze.
I ran a 141 flight school for 25 years and I demonstrated spins to every pilot before they were allowed to solo in the practice area (10 planes and 200 pilots) The response was always positive and the learning was valuable.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to teach ground reference (adding the vertical aspect of “patterns in the sky”) *BEFORE* we teach stalls?”. Generally I’d say no. Our sequence was normally do the high work, then the low work. I.e. with ground reference being close to the ground, there is a lot less room for error making it important to train on aircraft control and recovery from errors at a safe altitude before starting maneuvering flight at low altitudes.
You would think what you said was true. Surprisingly, I have found beginning students are very relaxed at 1,000 feet AGL. Their control inputs are more relevant for them. Even small bank angles show turn progress over the earth. I know one instructor who teaches ground reference maneuvers starting with straight line ditch and country road following. Have them set a cruise power setting and acquire the proper pitch attitude, trim up and enjoy the scenery (unwittingly learning crab angle necessity) without worry about meeting precise maneuver parameters until later.
I have been instructing for over 55 years and I have taught many Pilots how to fly using these very methods. Three important points, first, teaching coordination begins at the beginning and never ends. It must become second nature.
Second, I have always advised Private Pilots to work on their Commercial Certificate next and not their instrument certificate until after their Commercial. The experience and confidence gained makes the instrument training so much more easier and provides so much more confidence for the pilot.
Third, as a DPE, I see so many Private Pilots applicants with just the minima solo time and they all have difficulty during their practicals. On that same point the problem also exist with their solo cross country time and their long solo cross country. They just meet minimum standards with no real experience.
Bottom line, I tell all instructor this one point; “don’t teach your students how to pass the check ride, teach them how to fly, they will then pass the check ride”.
Thanks for commenting Jim! With your considerable experience, I feel we have a valid quorum on these important points! (I bet you also are not a fan of PDPIC🤣 for the reasons you mentioned). I think most long-time DPEs are tearing out their hair in frustration (if they have any left) over the “minimum FAA qualifications” applicants show up with. (70s on the knowledge test too!) There is too much of a rush to get a piece of paper (rather than durable skills)🤮
How would Commercial skills make learning Instrument skills any easier? Instrument is a different world. And instrument experience is probably more valuable for going into Part 135 and 121 – yes airplanes at that level are high performance, but they are maneuvered conservatively.
I had a student who got his private and instrument. He had a non-aviation career so didn’t pursue the Commercial. But did he ever take advantage of his instrument by taking a lot of personal trips and building a lot of actual instrument time. Later he lost his job and decided to go for it in aviation, getting his Commercial, multi, and CFI. He went on to fly Part-135 in PC-12’s, followed by a regional, a mainline carrier, and now has two years with a major.
When applying at every level, his instrument experience was a very impressive and positive factor. He had far more actual time than any instructor with whom he did training flights in the airplane from the Commercial and up.
Many private pilots who go from private directly into learning instrument are still not fully functioning pilots (very green). Some hours in the real aviation world actually flying as pilots, gaining experience with different environments (and esp. ATC) makes them much more capable to successfully master the instrument system.
One critical skill that is always weak in new pilots is “command authority.” New pilots still think the controllers run the aviation world. A pilot that does not know what (s)he needs and how to request that gets run around by ATC. I tell my pilots good “controllers” are really “coordinators” and artfully blend the needs of the pilots with the rules and system. I have seen too many new pilots get themselves into dangerous situations by blindly following what ATC dictates (and to be fair, it is not ATCs fault if the pilot does not speak up and advocate for what they need). YOu can buy more “hours” but not real “experience!”
I imagine many new privates just haven’t been exposed to too much and can easily get overwhelmed. One thought is to keep flights when PIC conservative, and take advantage of flights for the next rating as a way of increasing valuable experience with a CFI, whether it’s earning the instrument or commercial.
Several of my students have gone on to fly in the military. That, combined with my father having been a US Navy Instructor Pilot (IP), has given me a much better view into the differences between civil and military pilot training. After seeing both, I believe that civil pilot training is deficient. The fact that Loss-of-Control In-Flight (LOC-I) accident rates are NOT decreasing further reinforces this belief.
Many young CFI candidates come to me for their spin endorsement. It gives me the opportunity to open their eyes to better understanding of the flight envelope, how flight controls actually work, and how one’s behavior and control inputs need to change when the airplane crosses the stall line. I give them a taste of Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (UPRT) in addition to spin entry and recovery, certainly enough to let them clearly see the deficiencies in their training. I also point out that the military requires both the UPRT and aerobatic stages prior to allowing the student to go solo. What does the USAF and USN know that we don’t? I would suggest that the answer to that is, “Nothing.” So why are we not requiring expanded envelope operations?
And now the FAA is suggesting that they are going to refuse to allow this type of training early on, i.e. during primary training. Remember, what is learned first is learned best. Understanding how the airplane operates at the edges of the envelope needs to be part of primary training, not removed from it.
https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/194202
No magic bullet, unfortunately.
I flew with students who received military training, some were very good and some really bad….