We often talk about safety only in terms of pilot operator skills and capability; very objectifiable attributes. But regardless of how proficient and talented a pilot might be, we all have limitations. Challenges that exceed the skill/knowledge capability of a pilot lead to accidents or death. This “safety equation” of skill vs challenge is unforgiving. For safety assurance, there must be an honest match between the pilot’s capabilities and the challenge of the day. Weather, terrain, A/C performance, and pilot endurance continuously present ways to get in trouble. Regardless of the level of challenge, there must be a “margin of safety” between pilot capability and task requirements to come home safely. The major problem is we don’t honestly assess our personal capabilities.
In our modern technological world, most challenges are painfully obvious; a nasty cold front ahead, gusty winds or some lurking convective. The accident results when the (usually overconfident) pilot takes off and assumes too much challenge! Basic honesty is the lacking safety ingredient. Watch a few AOPA accident case studies – very therapeutic – where the dead pilot ignored the “known threat” or believed they could overcome it (“magical thinking”). These accident recreations play like horror movies where the audience is screaming; “don’t go into that dark and scary house ” – we all know the hero is going to die. The threat is obvious to everyone except the overconfident pilot, to whom this seems like a good idea. Not so much…
So brutal honesty is the tool we need to start out with: “Do I have the skill, knowledge, and endurance to handle this challenge?” Unfortunately, for the average pilot, an honest personal assessment is amazingly difficult. I think this is one (seldom-stated) reason why the safety record for two-crew operations is statistically 7X safer than solo flights. An honest arbiter provides an independent assessment of the challenges vs the skills and enforces good judgment. If every pilot just called a trusted friend before departing on a challenging flight, we might immediately be 7x safer.
This honesty goes beyond just the decision to initiate a flight. The common “just take a look” technique is often a lie that creates another set of hazards. Newton’s fourth law is “a pilot in motion tends to stay in motion!” It is amazingly difficult to turn back or land short once a flight has begun. The only antidote to this kind of stupidity is setting absolutely objective “hard stops” before starting (again honesty). “If the ceiling drops below XXX or the wind is more than XXX I will divert or land.” Personal minimums are essential safety tools. Maintaining the “3 Ds” (Delay, Divert, Drive) is the viable option for safety.
The second major requirement (again psychological) of safety is building flexibility into the original plan. A rigid, unchanging “mission mentality” in the face of the dynamic challenges of aviation (weather, fatigue, and malfunctions) creates the second threat that is well represented in accident data. Pilots continue with an original plan into overwhelming circumstances once in motion and end up dead. In accident recreations, the “view from the balcony” makes these threats obvious. This objective skill is called “metacognition.“ It is the essential ability to remove yourself from the action and objectively analyze the threats (thinking about thinking). I have diverted and landed short many times when my mind says (wisely) “This situation is starting to read like an NTSB report!” Another way to build this safety awareness is to ask yourself how you would explain your potential outcome to the friendly aviation inspector after the crash…
The mandate of a good CFI is to embed these critical “soft skills” into every pilot. These are the most critical and difficult skills to teach (or test). And this is where scenarios are the essential toolkit. Watching other pilots taking the wrong path (AOPA recreations) or allowing (leading) a learner to a wrong decision, demonstrates our human weakness for inaccurate self-assessment and “continuation bias“. The goal is to deliver this learning during dual training, *before* a future accident happens. The AOPA “Do The Right Thing” is also a highly recommended teaching tool. Building the habit of reflective analysis into every pilot is a lifetime learning tool to build awareness and save lives. This is similar to the instructional debrief and should become a habit in every pilot’s toolkit. “What went right, what went wrong; was my success luck or skill?” This is a critical question to answer after every flight. It turbocharges learning and helps keep you safe (and humble). Please fly safely out there (and often)!
See “SAFE SOCIAL WALL” FOr more Resources
Join SAFE and get great benefits. You get 1/3 off ForeFlight and your membership supports our mission of increasing aviation safety by promoting excellence in education. Our FREE SAFE Toolkit App puts required pilot endorsements and experience requirements right on your smartphone and facilitates CFI+DPE teamwork. Our CFI insurance was developed by SAFE specifically for CFIs (and is the best value in the business). 10 Tools for New CFIs Here
If the question is “What inspection(s) are required for VFR flight,” most of these items are 
To gain a deeper understanding of the required airworthiness items, spend a little time with a mechanic and really read the aircraft logbooks and POH (including the regulations cited in those endorsements). KOEL and MEL knowledge are in the ACS. Mentally place your plane in different airspace scenarios and think through what is *really* required. Go deeper than the “hangar flying drivel” everyone else parrots.
Fortunately, I discovered gliders (and then everything else that flies) could provide not only a lift in excitement and motivation, but also a unique set of skills to 
Maybe you are a Zen Master and can approach each moment as unique, but I found the easiest path to escape “
Currently, 2/3rds of “active CFIs” have taught for less than a year and often only have 5 hours of real solo time. Consequently, there is no real experience or wisdom to impart to a new learner. Current flight training needs more of this “wisdom and experience” injected to increase the level of flight training safety and efficiency. This is exactly what 
At accelerated schools, there is no time to master and solidify the aviation skills learned at the private, instrument, and commercial levels. Once the required FAA test minimums are met, these hard-won skills and knowledge rapidly become stale and are often forgotten (never reinforced or improved). Ask an instrument applicant about the significance of E/G airspace and the implication for IFR safety on approach to a non-towered airport; crickets! “That is private-pilot-level knowledge,” and already gone. With accelerated training, each discrete skill set is abandoned as soon as it’s completed and it’s off to the new challenges. As a result, the instructional cadre demonstrates limited skill and real-world experience. Many essential skills are missed because of this repeating “cycle of beginners.” 
Every properly prepared pilot can fly safely, even with a minimum level of skill, *IF* they accurately match their skills to the real demands of each mission. (That’s why CFIs can impose “limitations” on solo endorsements). In the vernacular, we are safe if we “don’t write checks we can’t cash.” The central problem, however, is the impossibility of accurately and objectively determining the two sides of this equation (see graphic above). Just about every pilot overrates their own skills and also underappreciates the threats they face. We inadvertently close that safety margin with our flawed analysis of both risks and skills. This is something I call “
To be safe we must accurately assess our real pilot skills and compare those to an equally accurate analysis of the demands of the flight. If an objective and honest analysis were actually available, maintaining safety becomes a simple physics problem; just maintain a margin of safety. Unfortunately, we are usually only capable of honest assessment during “20/20 hindsight.” (The “error correction” only arrives by virtue of a crash). Most often when we examine accidents in retrospect we end up puzzling “what were they thinking?”
numerous cognitive biases. As a funny example, 93% of American drivers think they are “better than average.” This impossible statistic is humorous in “Lake Wobegone” where “all the children are above average,” but very dangerous when we assess our personal capabilities in a high-consequence activity like flying. Most pilots rate their abilities much too highly. They look in the mirror and see Chuck Yaeger staring back at them.
Similarly, when we assess the seemingly objective flight risks of weather, terrain, and workload, we exhibit confirmation bias; we “see what we want to see.” Another side of this problem is erroneously assuming the challenges are fixed and linear. But the weather, wind, and workload change continuously and require different levels of skill throughout each flight. Some of the highest workload requirements occur just when fatigue is diminishing our skill and knowledge capabilities; narrowing the safety margin.
To accurately analyze “the safety margin” and maintain a comfortable “gap” of residual capability, every pilot should assume the worst level of weather; the highest challenge. Assuming minimal pilot capability is also wise since self-assessments are usually optimistic. In short, don’t try to be a hero and over-commit to a flight at the limits of your perceived capability; these walls are permeable. Flight planning with past successes (which may be only luck) can put any pilot in an unworkable “coffin corner.”
The challenges are intended to inspire pilots to elevate their skills by pursuing ever-increasing standards of proficiency, pushing pilots beyond their comfort zones while focusing on skills that will increase their enjoyment of and success during Epic flight training. The skills development program provides a complete roadmap for conducting this training but for brevity the program will not be fully outlined at this time. The following are the eight challenges that comprise the Epic Challenge:
Most of what I have shared has been focused on an upgrading pilot. If you are a Flight Instructor, wanting to enhance your skills, you should consider this program as a way to improve. To find a qualified instructor may take some time and patience. In addition to your personal contacts try professional aviation educator organizations.
The day before our first weekend we spent several hours discussing our plan, being clear as to the standards for performance (which are outlined in the guidelines for the program) and how we would integrate each of the scenarios into the flight.
That is exactly what the classic 
In early training CFIs emphasize a concept called “stall speed.” This number is in all the POHs and even marked on the airspeed indicator. Then in the next breath, we explain a wing can stall at “any speed and any flight attitude.” If we do not carefully and fully explain all this, it is no wonder most pilots are confused (as are the instructors). Questions on a flight-test, at any level regarding stalls or AOA can quickly go sideways with poor preparation and understanding. It can help to play a few revealing YouTubes (I call this one the “perfect stall.” How did an F-16 stall while pointed down at the earth?
The best method to teach stalls is to select a “too high” nose attitude (hopefully with a cloud reference). At this point, your pilot-in-training should know the Vy/Vx pitch references, so have them set and maintain a “too high” pitch attitude precisely and maintain this as the airplane deaccelerates. This maneuver will demonstrate the yoke continually moving aft (increasing AOA) to maintain the picture and more usefully achieve a stall. This is much more effective than the usual (and less helpful) “pull to the sky technique.” (BTW, an airplane that has leveled off in ground effect for landing is elegantly transiting this exact same range of AOA – except while “low and level.” Notice the yoke continuously moving backward while “flaring” creating this same ever-increasing AOA for a soft touchdown).
It takes some time and a caring relationship to introduce stalls correctly and not scare a pilot-in-training. If your student has not yet mastered coordinated flight (especially during climbs) it is too early to introduce stalls. The result will be predictable (and your fully scared student will probably drop out). A much better use of early flight time is demonstrating stability in the aircraft due to the clever aerodynamic design. Trim for an airspeed and raise the nose demonstrating how the plane will return to the trimmed speed/AOA. Trim a speed and add/reduce power demonstrating how the plane will seek that same speed/AOA. At least half of private pilot applicants are not aware the tail “lifts down” (and some CFIs do not know this either) providing dynamic stability for an aircraft in flight. Once pilots understand the nose is the “heavy end” and that recovery will take care of itself they have a greater sense of confidence and understanding of the physics involved. Planes don’t stall capriciously, *pilots* stall planes! Just because a plane *can* stall in any flight attitude does not mean that it *will.*