Creating Productive Scenarios; “Struggle Zone”

 

Scenario-based training has acquired a stigma in aviation though misuse. But if done properly, these experiences can be the most powerful tool in an experienced educator’s arsenal. And scenarios are the required core focus of all modern FAA ACS testing (what your good DPE is going to use during every evaluation). Every CFI must be an astute evaluator to be an effective educator. Proper application of scenarios requires discretion and creativity. Using the right tool at the appropriate time creates the most effective educational experience. Properly constructed scenarios add  a world of valuable challenge and motivation to training and more accurately resemble the real flight experience. Deployed properly, scenarios expand a small geographic area into the whole country (with no added cost!) and build higher level judgment skills making safer pilots.

The Misuse…

The misuse of scenarios comes primarily from imposing unimaginative (generic) scenarios onto every student without customizing the challenges to the proper level. Many scenarios are applied too soon and exceed the learner’s skill level.  Every flight operation requires some level of fluid skill – often acquired by drill and repetition – before the scenario can be effective (why piano scales are taught before Haydn!) Failure to consider the unique needs of each student wastes valuable time and money. “Learning opportunities” instead become “play time for instructors” building hours. Complex and inappropriate scenarios become an expensive burden for the pilot-in-training; 50 hour solos and 100 hour X-C levels.

The critical skill for the aviation educator is evaluation so the proper level of challenge is achieved. The heart of a successful scenario is customizing each learning experience to achieve optimal challenge (struggle zone). Creative generation and applicatiion of new experiences creates rapid skill acquisition, excitement and judgement (higher level learning). The result is versatile, resilient pilots (and often at a lower cost through efficiency). But in every case the pilot-in-training needs the prerequisite skills to adquately meet the scenario challenge -again – initially learned by rote and embedded through muscle memory, then extrapolated to each creative challenge with a scenario.

The Necessity…

The proven necessity of scenarios is simple. Your new pilot, or “rusty recurrent pilot”,  has the FAA privilege to fly day or night, anywhere in the country, for the rest of their life.  And this is despite being only trained in a small geographic area on good weather days, mostly in daylight.  To safely meet the challenge of real life flying, a student and educator must engage together in some “active imagining.” If done correctly, scenarios challenge the pilot and transport your learner to all the places and challenges they may encounter as a pilot.  Working together, you must mentally extrapolate from the local area to the challenges of the whole country, in different terrain and weather, encountered over the span of a lifetime.

Scenarios Done Properly…

If properly constructed and executed, a scenario puts your student into the “struggle zone” or what educational psychologists call the “zone of proximal development”.  An effective scenario presents the optimal level of personal challenge for an individual learner and enables an educator to both teach and evaluate at the highest correlation level of learning.  Done poorly, scenarios merely run up the flight training bill and become an excuse for extraneous trips to exciting lunch destinations on the client’s dime. Buying specialized scenario books or apps to deploy cumbersome generic scenarios usually fail; to be successful, each scenario must be personal and challenge each unique leaner. To present an effective scenario, it is essential to your student well so you can craft realistic challenges appropriate to their level of skill and realm of experience. Remember, a solid relationship of trust is the #1 ingredient to success in any learning situation.  Let’s unpack the “why” and “how to” of SBT  and also provide a sales pitch for this creative way to turbo-charge your teaching.

How to…Let’s get started!

Scenario training can be as simple as scrolling on Skyvector ( or ForeFlight) to a far off state and “mentally relocating” your student to a certain unique and surprising location with a mission and set of weather conditions. Active engagement and “buy in” from the learner is essential so adding a personal need to the mission is essential; make it personal! “You’re transporting your sick dog to the clinic and need to know what airspace we are in? And what viz and cloud clearance (radio/nav equipment) are required? Who do I talk to here and how will the plane perform at this altitude?” The more personally relevant and realistic each scenario is, the more actively your student will engage and the more effective their learning. (A previous blog revealed the learning benefits of practicing in the “struggle zone“) And all this can also happen effectively (and economically) on a bad weather day when flying might not be productive at your student’s level. If you have a simulator you obviously have an even better tool and the scenarios created for the EAA-PPC are available now on-line and available for FAA WINGS credit on faasafety.gov

So  if I am dealing with a Cornell aerospace student, a plausible scenario might start with “You are back at the Mohave Spaceport for Cornell and suddenly have an opportunity to do some personal flying in Mohave…how would you unpack the challenges of mountains and high density altitudes, unique “traffic”?” Or present the “Oshkosh Fly-In Challenge” with the Fisk arrival (this and others are in the EAA-PPC list) And remember these are also exactly the kind of challenges a good DPE is going to present during a practical test. Scenarios build a flexible, thoughful pilot that can unpack challenges and manage risks with skill, knowledge and imagination.

Creating mountains…

And how do you create those mountains? Perhaps after some low level ground reference maneuvering, impose a hypothetical “service ceiling” on your plane in MSL (2000 over the terrain but below the hilltops) Then limit the airplane power to 2100rpm (density altitude) and now transit the “mountains”. “Can we safely transition through the hills to our home airport?  Should we divert instead>”  Similarly you can impose a solid cloud ceiling and  leave the weather decision to the student. Then accept the client’s decision -good or bad- if conditions are within your minimums and you can keep the flight safe and legal. Once  you are flying with too much wind or too low clouds, the client experiences the consequences of their folly (and perhaps log some actual or get some good crosswinds) within a safe environment (watchful eye of the educator). Share your favorite scnarios in the comments below.

The essential element in all scenarios is allowing your client to make mistakes (while carefully maintaining a margin for safety) and supplying only minimal guidance.  Allowing this famous “learning opportunity” to unfold is critical and easily ruined by too much “helping” from the CFI. As errors add up, their struggle will clearly demonstrate the consequences of bad decisions and the “accident chain”  without the safety risk.

Motivating for students and educators!

Scenarios are exciting for both the pilot and the educator adding fun and variety to the training experience; this is how Master Instructors are built. Good scenarios beat “going to the practice area for some steep turns” hands down for learning efficiency and motivation. And there is a real difference between “one hour 2000 times” and “2000 unique hours of real teaching experience”. Attend our SAFE CFI-PRO™ workshop and  acquire expert instructor skills more rapidly (are we still learning as educators?). Fly safely (and often!)


 

Our SAFE CFI-PRO™ workshop covers the CFI as evaluator. We also cover “client-focused” flight training to address the 80% drop out rate in initial flight training.

Join SAFE to support our safety mission of generating aviation excellence in teaching and flying. Our amazing member benefits pay back your contribution (1/3 off your ForeFlight subscription)! Our FREE SAFE Toolkit App puts required pilot endorsements and experience requirements right on your smartphone and facilitate CFI+DPE teamwork. Our CFI insurance was developed by SAFE specifically for CFIs (and is the best value in the business).

Buffering “FAA Minimums” Aim For Excellence!

The FAA only specifies the absolute minimums (limitations) in their regulations and these are not recommended operating specifications.  This might sound silly to many pilots, but some people have not gotten this memo.  As one example, “one mile visibility and clear of clouds” in Class G airspace is an absolute legal minimum. All of aviation safety involves building (and maintaining) a personal margin above these FAA bare minimums. Minimum weather, fuel requirements, and even hours for pilot certification should have a margin applied to be safe and build better pilots.

I have been giving a lot of private checkrides lately and obviously a private pilot applicant must know Class G airspace and the basic legal weather minimums. But if they tell me they would go flying in this scary weather, they are not adequately managing risk. Similarly, FAA minimum flight instrumentation (day and night) requires only an airpseed indicator, altimeter (not even adjustable) and a compass. Again, every pilot should know this legal minimum, but should also be aware such primitive guidance is not adequate for most flights (especially at night). Building a margin by requiring more complete instrumentation, equipment, preparation and suitable weather is the basis for managing risk and building safety.

This paradigm of “FAA minimums vs safety margin” is an excellent method to understand (and teach) a risk management system (required in the FAA testing standards). Although a pilot applicant at any level must know the FAA minimums, they must also clearly define their personal “safety margin” for their  level of experience in a particular plane, environment and with unique external pressures of the situation. What examiners want to hear is “my thinking and safety margin in this situation is…”

The ACS defines specific areas to be considered when managing risk. This was developed straight out of the military’s “man, machine and mission” formula and is expanded and elucidated in the FAA Risk Management Handbook. P-A-V-E identifies the Pilot, Aircraft, EnVironment, and External Pressures that interact dynamically to cause (or mitigate) risk factors. Unfortunately, this subject is still given prefuctory coverage by many CFIs as they initially educate pilots or prepare them to take flight tests. In my opinion, this paradigm should be the primary vehicle used right from “day one” to expose new pilots to aviation. (Instead of a rarely mentioned “nice to know” addition “don’t forget risk management”)  Much of our aviation education system is still mired in the 1940s military curriculum of lesson planning. We need a cultural change that puts risk management as more central in our aviation education. P-A-V-E is an amazing safety tool for your personal flying and instructional focus.

And speaking of minimums, the current “rush to ratings” clearly is eliminating any “extras” and fun in the flight training experience. The required 5 hours of solo X-C for the private pilots now seems to often only involve one long flight on a very nice day. When I see a pilot applications with absolute minimum hours all I can think is “don’t you like flying?” Can’t we add a little more than the absolute minimum experience and build a margin of safety here too? Exposing students to more than one X-C flight or working with  more crosswind allows them to experience and internalize different weather, expand personal capacities and enhance their skills for a greater safety margin. They are going to need these hours and experience in the future anyway.

Screen Shot 2019-08-24 at 3.13.17 PM

The “minimums trap” seems to be increasingly common in pilot testing too, where applicants just just aim to pass with a minimum grade rather than striving for excellence. A 70% seems to make people happy and “mediocre” is too common in the current rush for ratings. But as proud safe pilots, our whole system of superior safety and professionalism is built on trying harder and striving for the best we can be. There is real safety value and satisfaction in exceeding the minimums and pursuing more comprehensive knowledge and skill when we aim for excellence. Fly safely out there (and often)!


Our SAFE CFI-PRO™ workshop covers the whole extended envelope catalog and application to both initial and recurrent training. We also cover “client-focused” flight training to combat the 80% drop out rate in initial flight training.

Join SAFE to support our safety mission of generating aviation excellence in teaching and flying. Our amazing member benefits pay back your contribution (1/3 off your ForeFlight subscription)! Our FREE SAFE Toolkit App puts required pilot endorsements and experience requirements right on your smartphone and facilitate CFI+DPE teamwork. Our CFI insurance was developed by SAFE specifically for CFIs (and is the best value in the business).

Reflect and Redirect; “Double Loop” Learning!

Pilots are a “different breed of cat” as you well know. As a personality type we are confident, higher than average in intelligence, tend toward dominance and are almost never wrong about anything! (ask my wife…) “Never wrong” is “sort of” a joke but you know our tribe; pretty self-assured and assertive, with perfectionist tendencies. And though it takes confidence to pilot effectively, pilots also hate to admit to errors (as do most professionals in all fields). This very feature makes pilots and other high-performance professionals remarkably bad at learning. And as experience and hours pile up this problem gets worse not better; success becomes an impediment to further learning. This is a well-known problem in the “C-suite” of business too. Read Teaching Smart People How to Learn by Chris Argyris (a Harvard Business Review Classic) for a great analysis of this problem. Experts and professionals are remarkably good at problem solving but amazingly bad at learning.

Double loop learning is part of action science — the study of how we act in difficult situations. Individuals and organizations need to learn if they want to succeed (or even survive). But few of us pay much attention to exactly how we learn and how we can optimize the process.

Even smart, well-educated people can struggle to learn from experience. We all know someone who’s been at the office for 20 years and claims to have 20 years of experience, but they really have one year repeated 20 times.

Finding and trapping errors is only the first basic feedback loop where we analyze, correct and revise our plans or techniques. This “problem-solving” level is characteristically directed outward, largely analytical, and psychologically painless. Creating and following SOPs or regulations is part of this process. Compensating for changing conditions and  “re-trimming” our activies back to the desired flow is all part of a normal day.

Real progress and improvement (learning and not just problem-solving) occurs at a higher level and involves tweaking the mental models and preventing the error in the first place. This requires time to reflect critically on our own behavior and failings, solving deeper thinking/scripting problems. Level two or “double loop” learning freely admits to errors and fixes our inner OS that is usually the root cause. Every error should be viewed as a “double loop opportunity” to dig deeper and reflect on our assumptions and test the validity of our hypotheses. Only though “reflective learning” can we access and correct our normally invisible implicit level of learning.

For professionals, inward directed reflection can be initially psychologically painful. Professionals and expert performers are used to being “competent and correct” but “double loop learning” requires we admit, accept and correct personal failings. In addition, this is often only the first step. Accepting instruction, taking wise counsel humbly (and happily) is the key to real and rapid improvement. So we need to soften that pilot wall of confidence a bit and admit to personal failure to achieve growth. Learning happens at the “double loop” reflective level. A sure sign of this is when a good pilot say “thank-you” when an error is pointed out, and in the debrief not only makes a “note to self” to correct the obvious goof going forward but also resolves the deeper assumption/hypothesis that was the root cause.

     Highly skilled professionals are frequently very good at single loop learning. After all, they have spent much of their lives acquiring academic credentials, mastering one or a number of intellectual disciplines, and applying those disciplines to solve real-world problems. But ironically, this very fact helps explain why professionals are often so bad at double-loop learning.
     Put simply, because many professionals are almost always successful at what they do, they rarely experience failure. And because they have rarely failed, they have never learned how to learn from failure. So whenever their single-loop learning strategies go wrong, they become defensive, screen out criticism, and put the “blame” on anyone and everyone but themselves. In short, their ability to learn shuts down precisely at the moment they need it the most.

As humans, evolving over millions of years, we are internally hardwired with all kinds of implicit reactions and biases that serve us amazingly well in survival against primordial threats and historical environmental challenges. Unfortunately, this deep imprinted learning is subconscious and only becomes visible in action. We need to reflect, accept, adapt and rewire these internal systems with double loop learning if we want to function accurately under pressure in each specific aviation environment.

As aviation educators, it is also essential to develop these”double loop” corrective abilities in our clients. Once they are competent and approaching independent flight, it’s necessary (and initially excrutiating) to allow our these pilots the time and opportunity to discover (struggle) and correct their own errors! The #1 beginner CFI mistake is to immediately intervene and correct every mistake and not allow a “learning opportunity” (genius in the right seat). Your pilot will never develp the metacognitive capacity to self-correct and improve ; they will need a CFI forever. Our educational goal should be to create confident, independent, lifetime learners in every pilot.

And as educational professionals, we all need to continually learn and improve. Join us for the CFI-PRO™ workshop on October 2-3, 2019 at AOPA (KFDK) Pursue personal improvement and excellence in your flying (and teaching), we have your back! See you at AOPA-Fly-In TN (get a free Sporty’s FIRC with sign-up) and enjoy 1/3 off Foreflight (member benefit) which more than pays your annual dues. Fly safely (and often!)


Please “follow” our SAFE blog to receive notification of new articles. Write us a comment if you see a problem or want to contribute an article. We are always seeking more input on aviation improvements and flight safety. There are many highly qualified aviation educators out there! 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. Lastly, use our FREE SAFE Toolkit App to put pilot endorsements and experience requirements right on your smart phone and facilitate CFI+DPE teamwork. Working together we make safer pilots!

The Secret of Pattern Safety!

We all know a majority of accidents occur in the traffic pattern; especially during descent and runway line-up. But the burning question is “why?” Basically, we fear the wrong things. Most pilots don’t understand the basic flight dynamics of descending turns and the real consequences and risks of unstabilized flying. With a little knowledge, practice and a committment to artful flying excellence, we all can do better and fly safer.

But instead pilots try to achieve safety by never banking over 20 degrees, flying huge patterns and becoming increasingly timid.  Others advocate oval patterns to eliminate the steeper corners of the pattern (but fly a constant turn). Why not just “learn to turn” correctly and safely in the first place? I watch in amazement as pilots horse their planes around to final with varying bank angles and wildly changing airspeeds (hold on partner!) exhibiting a lack of stability, ground track control and overall discipline. The physical problems with patterns are obvious but they are driven by a lack of understanding risk and knowledge of the forces at work.  This lack of stability and control continues directly into professional piloting where unstable approaches and overrun accidents are the #1 cause of accidents in corporate jets. As aviation educators (and pilots) we need to do better. Understanding some basic flight dynamics is critical to success.

Safety and a passion for pattern precision starts with an understanding of the invisible angle of attack (AOA) where the real risk hides. Simply presenting and thoroughly explaining  a set of pictures like the ones above  can jump start the conversation and clear up some very common misunderstandings. When asked which aircraft depicted above has the greatest angle of attack (AOA) almost every pilot (and many CFIs) pick the nose-high Cessna. The “a-ha” learning opportunity is that the AOA is the same on both of these aircraft. And that means the airplane in the glide is just as close to a stall as the nose-high plane on the left (now risk becomes clear). If we never demonstrate a stall with the nose *below* the horizon a new pilot in training will never understand AOA and how accidents occur. There is a “natural” (but erroneous) assumption that with the nose low, we are “safe” and “all stalls occur with a nose-high flight attitude” – wrong and reason #1 for pattern accidents! Even if this error is not stated verbally, practicing and demonstrating only nose-high stalls builds this myth and masks the true danger of descending turns.

In our initial flight instruction teaching the basic level turn, we emphasize that when a plane is banked, the lift vector is redirected to the horizontal (to create the turn) and no longer entirely opposes gravity. Consequently, some back-pressure is necessary to maintain altitude in a level turn. And during initial flight training, we build up this rote, muscle memory “bank and add pressure” response through repetition. But when we move on to the descending turns, is essential to emphasize this previously memorized script is incorrect.

A descending turn is completely different and requires “bank and release” because the added load of the bank will add drag and cause a decrease in airspeed (and greater AOA) unless back pressure is relaxed (and trim is a wonderful and underused tool here). Pilots descending tend to lose airpseed on every turn; they are banking and inappropriately adding back pressure (or failing to appropriately release). This is reason #2 of the “why” that explains many pattern accidents. This failure to understand the basic flight dynamics of the turn and AOA (also probably add some initial “ground fear” of being low) causes pilots in training bank to mishandle AOA. And once bad habits are extablished in training, they never go away.

How “eyeball friendly” is your trainer?

Outside visual reference and proper trimming are also vastly undervalued in modern flight training. If the airplane is trimmed properly and the pilot in training knows the proper, predictible flight attitude for a descent in various configurations, the stabilized control of the aircraft is much easier. Unfortunately, many pilots in training are inappropriately focused inside on the panel chasing the airpseed indicator instead of setting a flight attitude with outside references. Personally, unless my pilot in training can fly the whole pattern visually, with eyes outside (and the instrument panel covered) I hesitate to even consider a solo. Fly safely out there (and often).


And of course, more on this and other key educator tools at our Oct. 2/3 SAFE CFI-PRO™ workshop at AOPA in Fredrick, MD. The registration form will be live in a week. This will have Hilton and Marriott rooms at a discount and a networking dinner at the National Aviation Community Center!

Apple or Android versions.

Join SAFE to support our safety mission of generating aviation excellence in teaching and flying. Our amazing member benefits pay back your contribution (like 1/3 off your annual ForeFlight subscription)! 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 specifically for CFI professionals (and is the best value in the business).

“Artful” Control Usage; Pattern Precision

Rudder use in climbing turns is critical to safety in the pattern!

Flying around the pattern with perfect coordination is more difficult than most pilots think. Its also essential to safety because this is where the majority of accidents happen either from collisions or loss of control. Aviation educators must be insistent on thorough understanding and proper control usage if we are going to make better, safer pilots.

The correct actions and control pressures required in the pattern often go against what initially seems “natural” to new trainees; their “naive rendition.” Aviation educators need to patiently unpack and overwrite naive assumptions with correct theory and control usage. These are “trained responses” and require lots of practice to become embedded, implicit scripts that are constantly ready for use by the savvy pilot. There are lots of negative transfers from our more common transportation activity; driving.

Every educator will get arguments that mastering the correct control application is unnecessary because what they are doing “already works” or they will correct sloppy control later; neither is true. The basics must be mastered early and practiced often in flying or you have embedded a ticking bomb in your procedures that will surface later when a critical surprise situation requires immediate and accurate control skills to save the day. Marginal performance from power loss or density altitude challenges can suddenly require us to squeeze every ounce of performance from our aircraft. For safety and efficiency we need to unpack some of these less studied effects and work to master correct coordination.

A common example of “instinctual control” is seen in new pilots on initial power application and rotating to climb for take-off. These new learners counter left yawing tendencies with aileron;  a powerful negative transfer from driving. Many experienced but rusty pilots still exhibit a trace of this incorrect control input. Correctly canceling the yaw with rudder is a trained response that has to overwrite “intuition” and driving habits through continual reinforcement. With practice, the nose should rise straight and steady to a know climb attitude with outside reference and rudder pressure canceling yaw. (Extra points are awarded for not wagging left and right as the climb progresses) As the plane leaves the ground and starts climbing, some even more subtle control pressures are necessary to stay coordinated.

After rotation the pivot point for elevator shifts from the wheels to the CG point (forward of the wing) so a release of back pressure (lower nose) is required (nosewheel plane). Additionally, the increase of induced drag upon leaving ground effect requires a subtle relaxing of back pressure. The proper climb picture required should be memorized and acquired with visual outside reference. The view outside will also allow a pilot to see that left aileron is necessary to keep the wings level in the climb. Right rudder pressure causes a proverse roll to the right (more prominent in some planes than others). This subtle force surprises even experienced pilots when it is pointed out. Climbing coordinated requires some cross control pressure to keep the ball centered and the wings level; “cross-coordinated.” In the proper configuration, most planes exhibit 15% greater climb rate when correctly coordinated on the takeoff since they are stramlined and more efficient. (Try gliders to experience how necessary proper coordination is to performance) Though 300-700 HP can pull almost anything airborne even sideways, bad coordination in emergency situations is the killer. It is amazing that 24% of fatal accidents occur on the take-off and initial climb. Many pilots just don’t value all the challenges here – “hard to miss the sky!”

During the initial high-power, low-speed climb, most singles require right rudder pressure to center the ball. This induces a right rolling moment. Left aileron input against the right rudder is subtle but necessary to keep the wings level as the ball is centered. Once the plane is “subtly cross-controlled” in this manner, it will climb much better because drag is minimized.

The standard left crosswind turn in the patterm  is an even greater challenge to keep properly coordinated for new pilots; right rudder is required! Recent accident data indiates the climbing crosswind turn in the pattern may be even more dangerous than the well known base-to-final turn. Pilots turning left in a climb usually don’t apply the proper right rudder pressure to cancel the prominent left-turning forces since is initially “so unnatural.” As mentioned in many of these blogs, flying well requires many counter-intuitive trained actions to be safe. Remember, since both wings have equal lift in a stabilized turn, and the left-turning tendencies are still present and require right rudder – we are still climbing! Unfortunately, many pilots skid around their left climbing turns (standard right-hand patterns would be safer for control). Pilots who have tried chandelles – a more extreme climbing turn – are very familiar with the cross-coordination concept here. But even in less extreme left crosswind climbing turn, right rudder is essential. But why is flat-footed flying dangerous here?

In skidding turns, the force of roll and yaw are both acting in the same downward direction; they are coupled and adverse in effect – pro-spin. And when pilots inappropriately counter this skidding force in a climbing left turn with more aileron, this incorrect control application increases the angle of attack on the lower, slower wing. This makes the lower wing more likely to stall first and tuck into a spin. This illustration from Bold Method provides a depiction of the many problems with a skidding turn. Correct control application must be taught relentlessly by a committed aviation educator and studied carefully by the pilot in training to become an embedded habit. And this is particularly hard to master since it is a llearned action that is initially completely counter-intuitive. But anything less is clearly unsafe.

The skidding turn seems to be always depicted in a nose low, base-to-final turn in the pattern. This is where pilot action creates the skid with rudder to inappropriately increase the rate of turn. But you will see far more skidding turns in a climbing left turn if you pay attention. The skid here only requires pilot inaction. All the powerful left-turning tendencies create the skid that must be corrected by pilot action. These left-turning forces must be actively countered with right rudder to prevent a skid. This dangerous tendency is especially common in bigger planes and more powerful engines in the climbing turns. Do the math and you can discern that this is often demonstrated by the “captain of industry” – an affluent step-up client who bought a big new plane. This person is allegedly a “trained pilot” but often really requires remedial instruction to be safe. The professional aviation educator must be firm here to address and fix these coordination problems. Acquiescing to poor control or bad technique is unprofessional and unsafe; it’s how we are losing control in our aircraft every day. Fly safe out there (and often)!

An appreciative nod to Michael Maya Charles and his amazing book “Artful Flying” (SAFE members get 20% off) which continues to inspire me daily. Flying well is more than just being safe. It is the daily joy of pursuing excellence in aviation; flying artfully!

 

 


Apple or Android versions.

Join SAFE to support our safety mission of generating aviation excellence in teaching and flying. Our amazing member benefits pay back your contribution (like 1/3 off your annual ForeFlight subscription)! 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 specifically for CFI professionals (and is the best value in the business).

Calibrating Confidence

More than 100 people die every day on the US roads in their automobiles.  An active co-conspirator in this carnage is the fact that 90% of drivers believe they are “better than average.” As a species humans are notoriously overconfident! And the Dunning-Kruger Effect (a well documented psychological phenomenon) shows that the least skilled are the most over-confident. Though this trait keeps us humans forging ahead and accomplishing amazing things but it sure leads to a lot of fatal accidents in mechanized devices. We need to recognize this hazard in flight training and manage it during every preflight assessment. I-M-S-A-F-E-(C)?

Overconfidence is not specifically recognized as a “hazardous attitude,” by the FAA but lies  somewhere between invulnerability and macho (and is also well represented in our pilot population).  Calibrating our confidence is critical in every pre-flight self-assessment. Pilots do some crazy things in planes and seem to just believe/hope it will work out – hope is never a good planning strategy!  Every aviation educator should be alert for overconfidence in their students, it is a sure killer and seems to be increasingly popular (or is that just YouTube making bad judgment manifest?) The well-documented Dunning-Kruger Effect states that “low ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence.” We often need an independent analysis to reveal how risky we are being. When you read articles like the accident below,  consider how many endorsements a CFI has to put into this student’s logbook to make this flight remotely legal.

Calibrating confidence is of course a matter of achieving the healthy balance between hubris and doubt. Every pilot must maintain some level of assertiveness and bravery to fly appropriately “in command” because continuous doubt is equally dangerous to safety. Accepting peer review and maintaining objective standards help achieve the proper balance; staying humble and accepting curated advice is essential.

One of my mentors in aviation flew 125 combat missions over Vietnam. And though “you do not walk out to a $16M fighter with your tail between your legs”, his personal flight rules dictate that every mission needs to start by consciously encouraging some fear and doubt.  The “premeditation of evils” sharpens our situational awareness and maintains vigilance. At a minimum, every flight should at least begin in “code yellow.” This is, of course, easier when you are dodging SAMS but not too common in our daily “fun flying.” Complete a full briefing and add some “healthy doubt” to every flight.

Peter Garrison’s “Aftermath” column in Flying Magazine provides a shocking , over-the-top, tale of misplaced optimism. (App direct link HERE) This article starts almost predictably with the classic VFR pilot caught over a solid overcast; hoping to find a hole. However, deeper examination reveals the “pilot” (in a turbo Saratoga) was not even certificated as a pilot, but just a student with slightly over 2 hours of instruction logged. He just bought an airplane and started flying. The fatal result was pretty predictable and definitely preventable. In cases like this it seems incumbent upon the aviation educator to alert authorities before the inevitable occurs. Both of these pilots could be alive today if someone said something and stopped the process. (See Dr. Bill Rhodes on “Pilots Who Should Scare Us“)

Attitudes are notoriously difficult to shape as an educator. Running a busy flight training operation for 25 years, despite our best efforts, we had to “uninvite” a few people who just could not face the reality of managing risk and were a danger to themselves and the rest of the group. Rick Durden wrote a great article on this dilemma in flying clubs; painful but necessary.

Enjoy summer in California and visit SAFE at the AOPA Fly-In at Livermore today (or watch our FaceBook feed The STOL contest is at noon – we are at booth #52. Fly safely (and often)!


Apple or Android versions.

Join SAFE to support our safety mission of generating aviation excellence in teaching and flying. Our amazing member benefits pay back your contribution (1/3 off your ForeFlight subscription)! Our FREE SAFE Toolkit App puts required pilot endorsements and experience requirements right on your smartphone and facilitate CFI+DPE teamwork. Our CFI insurance was developed specifically for CFI professionals (and is the best value in the business).

Fly SAFE; More Fun!

Wishing you a warm and happy Thanksgiving! Here are some (not often consulted) words from the new FAA Advisory Circular 61-98D on flight reviews – excellent reading! The FAA specifies regulatory minimums for certificates; we all need to do better to be safe – and CFIs need to lead this initiative by modeling and inspiring aviation excellence.

Pilot Proficiency: Studies have shown that LOC usually occurs when pilots lack proficiency. Conditions exceeding personal skill limitations can present themselves at any time and can occur unexpectedly. In this event, the pilot should be able to avoid being startled, make appropriate decisions in a timely manner, and be able to exercise skills at a proficiency level he or she may not have maintained or attained since acquired during initial training. This makes personal currency programs and proficiency training essential.

Personal currency programs serve to develop and maintain pilot proficiency by promoting attributes such as aeronautical knowledge, aeronautical skill, and ADM. These attributes collectively determine the degree of aeronautical ability a pilot possesses. Highly proficient pilots are better able to avoid or manage an in-flight emergency in a safe and efficient manner. Consequently, the GAJSC recommends that pilots place emphasis on their specific proficiency needs by including training that may exceed regulatory minimum currency requirements.

Traffic Pattern Operations

LOC accidents often occur while pilots are maneuvering at low altitude and airspeed, such as in an airport traffic pattern. Pilots should adopt, and flight instructors should promote, training programs designed to reduce the risk of  GA accidents in traffic pattern operations. Flight instructors should provide training to mitigate the three areas of highest risk involving maneuvering an airplane in an airport traffic pattern. The first area is the risk of a departure stall; the second area is the risk of LOC if attempting to return to the field after an engine failure on takeoff, and the third area is the risk of LOC on the base to final turn.  

Flight instructors should emphasize training that ensures that pilots of small single-engine airplanes depart in coordinated flight at the best-rate-of-climb speed (VY ) for normal takeoffs, and maintain this speed to the altitude necessary for a safe return to the airport in the event of an emergency.  Flight instructors should train pilots of single-engine airplanes not to return to the field after an engine failure unless altitude and best glide requirements permit.  Accordingly, flight instructors should provide training that emphasizes the correct speeds at which light twin -piston aircraft depart the runway.  Flight instructors should emphasize that a departure at the best-angle-of-climb speed  (VX ) is used for obstacle clearance and short -field takeoff procedures.

Flight instructors should also emphasize the risks and potential consequences of climbing out at speeds less or greater than what is required for a particular type of takeoff. Flight instructors should train pilots of single-engine airplanes not to return to the field after an engine failure unless altitude and best glide requirements permit a safe return. Therefore, flight instructors should not routinely train pilots to make a 180- degree turn from a simulated engine failure while climbing. However, this training should occur at a safe altitude.  A critical part of conducting this training is for the flight instructor to be fully aware of the need for diligence, the need to perform this maneuver properly,  and to avoid any potential for an accelerated stall in the turn. It is essential for a pilot to know the altitude that will be lost in a 180 -degree turn, in the specific make and model  (M/M) flown, if and when a pilot considers turning back to the departure airport at best glide. During the before-takeoff check, the expected loss of altitude in the turn, plus a sufficient safety factor, should be related to the absolute altitude at which a turn back may be attempted.  In addition, the effect of existing winds on the preferred direction of a turn back should be briefed.

Flight instructors should also teach pilots to reject an approach and initiate a go-around when the pilot cannot maintain a stabilized approach. The GAJSC  recommends that pilots and flight instructor s emphasize stabilized approach and landing proficiency and conduct stabilized approaches as a standard practice. Flight reviews and IPCs should emphasize evaluating a pilot’s ADM,  departure skills, and ability to establish and maintain a stabilized approach and landing, while applying effective crosswind techniques to avoid the risk of  LOC when maneuvering in an airport traffic pattern. Effective scenario-based training, emphasizing ADM, departures, and establishing and maintaining a stabilized approach to a landing, reduces the risk of LOC in an airport traffic pattern. Many of the principles discussed in this paragraph apply to multiengine aircraft, but do not apply to single-engine operations in the multiengine airplane. Flight instructors should emphasize the correct speeds at which light twin -piston aircraft are operated in the traffic pattern and provide training in response to an engine failure in a variety of situations.  

Excellent guidance! Join SAFE to support our safety mission of generating aviation excellence in teaching and flying. Our amazing member benefits pay back your contribution (1/3 off your ForeFlight subscription)! Lastly, use our FREE SAFE Toolkit App to access pilot endorsements and experience requirements right on your smart phone and facilitate CFI+DPE teamwork. Working together to raise professionalism makes all of us safer pilots!

“Know-Do-Consider” to Build Savvy Pilots!

The heart of the new Airman Certification Standards is risk management. This essential wisdom was added to the limited PTS focus of skill and knowledge in 2016 to form the complete pilot experience of “know, do and consider” – knowledge, skill, judgment. These factors dynamically determine the safety of every flight. This new flight training initiative was driven directly from the aviation accident data. These numbers reveal over 80% of accidents result from human failings – usually bad judgment and flawed decision-making. Refining and improving judgment is a difficult, ongoing and never-ending challenge. It involves the internal battle within every pilot each time we fly; balancing utility with safety – often what we want against what is possible and sensible.

The primary methodology for training and testing risk management is the creative use of scenarios. Since flight training is necessarily conducted in a very limited environment of geography, weather, and equipment, the instructor (and later DPE) must mentally transport their learner into new and challenging imaginary situations to build and improve the decision-making skills that result in safer outcomes. Thought we train in one small area and  climate, we should theoretically experience a broad range of challenges. One additional advantage of this method is the safety benefit of failing in the mental arena rather than a real airplane; no one dies in a table top scenario! The best aviation educators are masters of creative questions and scenarios.

Simulators provide a deeper and more realistic version of scenario training (as well as enabling specific skill/drill procedure training), allowing an imaginative educator to more realistically transport their learner into all kinds of challenging environments. Each new scenario requires a different toolkit of skills, knowledge and judgment to prevail. The additional advantage to simulators is creating these “learning opportunities” without adding the expense and inconvenience inherent in a gas-powered, gravity-challenged devices. When learning occurs in this manner we are all safer!

The use of scenario-based training in general aviation became accepted and popularized though the availability of realistic full-motion simulators for the GA market – largely Redbird. SAFE’s original Executive Director, Doug Stewart, developed the Pilot Proficiency Project with Rich Stowell and created an ingenious catalog of masterfully crafted scenarios deployed on the Redbird Simulator. These original scenarios now number over 30 and are featured every year at Oshkosh in the Pilot Proficiency Center. This SAFE

project was the first nationally recognized use of scenario-based training in aviation, focusing largely on decision-making and risk management. Expanding this further, the SAFE Pilot Training Reform Symposium in Atlanta in 2011 led directly to the  FAA/industry partnership that resulted in the ACS.

We are lucky there are so many wonderful tools now available to foster personal improvement in risk management. This has become the accepted industry standard of aviation safety training. These are also valuable for aviation educators to employ as resources in flight training. The FAA Risk Management Handbook is the official source document from which many other documents flow. This is cited frequently in the ACS. The Aeronautical Decision Making chapter in the FAA Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge is also a solid resource for pilots seeking excellence or educators working with learners. The FAA has a dedicated page of CFI scenarios to help jump start your imagination and help you create your own. The EAA Pilot Proficiency website has a comprehensive catalog of scenarios for the Redbird [here]

Thanks for reading and please “follow” our SAFE blog to receive notification of new articles. Write us a comment and continue the dialogue. If you feel inspired, please contribute an article. We are always seeking more input on aviation improvements and flight safety. There are many highly qualified aviation educators out there!

And Join SAFE to support our safety mission of generating aviation excellence in teaching and flying. Our amazing member benefits pay back your contribution (1/3 off your ForeFlight subscription)! Lastly, use our FREE SAFE Toolkit App to access pilot endorsements and experience requirements right on your smart phone and facilitate CFI+DPE teamwork. Working together to raise professionalism makes all of us safer pilots!

Our Subtle Safety Enemy: “Drift”

Serious pilots all embrace a commitment to the concept of safety and I hope no one –except perhaps our recent Seattle Q400 thief– wants to end up in a “smoking hole”. But despite this commitment and embracing best practices, we are constantly challenged by the subtle “drift” of normalizing.  “Procedural drift” is the result of our built-in human process of adaptation, driven by our urge to achieve greater efficiency and utility. Adaptation has made us the most successful species on earth, happily inhabiting every corner of the globe from the arctic to the slums of Mumbai. But it does not serve us well in maintaining safety in aviation.

The forces and adjustments that lead to “drift” are incremental, subtle and subconscious. As pilots, we are all self-selected, aggressive optimizers and we value the efficiency and utility of getting the job done (mission mentality). But in almost every case, this natural drive is opposed to our better angels of managing the risks and assuring safety. This dynamic process of “drift” starts with any non-standard procedure or short cut often very small. Let’s say that by “pushing the edge” a little, we are blessed with success. This may be a result of skill or entirely due to luck, but either way, with each “success” becomes a neurological and social “win” in our brain. Each success makes us feel good and reinforces the new behavior (see: brain chemical dopamine). With this change we start to “drift”and never assess “luck or skill.” Each success subtly transforms our personal standards and we subconsciously accept a new procedure that may add a risk. The GIV disaster at Bedford a few years ago was a perfect example of professionals who had drifted over years into a very unsafe operation. This crew was literally an “accident waiting to happen” and never through a conscious decision. This very same process fooled a very smart bunch of engineers and managers at NASA and brought down two US space shuttles! This process is built into our human software.

The normalization of deviance is defined as: “The gradual process through which unacceptable practice or standards become acceptable. As the deviant behavior is repeated without catastrophic results, it becomes the social norm for the [person or] organization.” Seven years after Dr. Vaughan’s book was published, it struck again. The shuttle Columbia came apart due to damage in its heat shield as it was re-entering the earth’s atmosphere, and seven more astronauts died. NASA had fallen prey to the normalization of deviance for a second time. Shuttles returning with damaged heat shields had become the norm.

Especially in the vacuum of personal flying, with no additional training or any outside objective comparisons, a “personal standard” can develop into some very unique procedures quite contrary to safety. This is why the simple addition of hours does not create safer pilots; it may instead create a very weird and dangerous pilot. (And this is one reason professional pilots revisit the mother ship every six months) Without a supporting professional organization and regular critique, drift and normalizing are almost inevitable in piloting. That is why frequent training and an affiliation to a professional organization (yes- SAFE) with a strong Code of Ethics are essential.

Dr. Bill Rhodes, an Air Force Academy Instructor, has studied pilot personalities extensively and points out lots of warning signs. Almost every time the biggest talker in the room with the “fifty mission jacket” is exactly the person to avoid and ignore. Their personal belief in their own abilities and skills, with no objective standard or verification, has led them to become a dangerous and “creative” aviator (often with the biggest ego).

Especially if you are a new pilot or instructor and value professionalism and excellence in aviation, seek out a proven, professional mentor to guide your growth as you explore and develop your new skills. This is especially important if you are a new aviation educator, in the business of teaching even more pilots (see last week’s blog). We can only sustain a professional standard as a group if we are professionals bonded together; its the human condition. For more on this fascinating process of normalization and drift, see Sidney Dekker’s book “Drift Into Failure” (As a professor he even became a professional pilot to study this process in at work in aviation) It turns out the more errors we expose and talk about the safer we are — not by ignoring the problem. Join SAFE, we are here for you-fly safely (and often).


Please “follow” our SAFE blog to receive notification of new articles. Write us a comment if you see a problem or want to contribute an article. We are always seeking more input on aviation improvements and flight safety. There are many highly qualified aviation educators out there! 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. Lastly, use our FREE SAFE Toolkit App to put pilot endorsements and experience requirements right on your smart phone and facilitate CFI+DPE teamwork. Working together we make safer pilots!

Command Your Technology For Safety!

Our amazing modern technology provides all kinds of enigmatic choices and challenges for directing our lives. “Smartphones” and “digital assistants” increasingly suggest or determine our every action unless we consciously intervene and take charge. Especially for pilots, taking charge and commanding our relationship with technology is essential if we want to fly safety. A little history here provides some important lessons.

Click for detailed FAA Report on TAA Safety

Do you remember all the promises that “technically advanced airplanes”  would dramatically reduce our GA accident rate? This was like a “magic bullet” in the 1990s when the first “glass panel” aircraft were coming onto the market. The promise everywhere in the news was that we would be “saved by technology.” This seemed logical given the incredible precision and quantity of information suddenly available to pilots previously depending on some pretty sketchy analog devices. With digital accuracy and data, we would be able to better see and avoid weather and supposedly never run out of fuel. But our tricky human interface largely defeated many of the benefits provided by the new technology and the same accidents are still occuring with depressing regularly.

The paradox of technology is that precisely because we have more accurate data,  pilots can reduce their planning margins and cut it even closer to the edge. In the case of fuel, we can plan tighter on time and with live weather depiction in the panel,  we often navigate even closer between storm cells. The root problem is a lack of pilot judgment. By training or by nature, pilots are mission driven and often aggressively “optimize” and thereby decrease their safety. Give us humans a sharper tool and they will shave the safety margin ever closer. The difference between what we are able to do and what we should do for safety still escapes many pilots. Clearly the challenge for aviation educators is teaching wisdom, not wi-fi.

The ACS focus on judgment and robust risk management has made a huge and important difference in the flight training and testing world. I see this as a CFI and DPE and hope we see an impact soon in the safety statistics. But because this initiative is still so new to general aviation, the benefits are still only slowly making their impact upward into the aviation charter world. I actually clearly remember the very first time I had a young co-pilot initiate his own risk management plan before a challenging flight. I thought I would fall over in gratitude. He had clearly laid out the challenges and his risk mitigation planning just like a student on a flight test- – funny how that initial training works. Modern technology in the panel provides amazing tools; perfect location mapping, real-time weather, fuel status down to the last drop. But all this will only yield increased safety if we have a “thinking monkey” operating it with a clear vision of the larger safety concerns.

A student logbook from a flight test; so good to see “personal minimums” recorded.

Another challenge provided by our amazing new technology pertains to legacy operators; pilots with years in the air, importing this technology into their flying. There is far too much reliance on autopilots and GPS with operator skills deteriorating rapidly and dramatically. Many formerly wonderful old-time pilots have become unapologetic “technology managers” driving planes in a mindless fashion. As we become “programmers”, the hand flying skills we once all depended on to be safe are no longer available as a back-up.

In the 135 charter world proficiency is enforced every 6 months in FAA-required training. In the GA world the proficiency mandate falls to the aviation educator. I highly recommend the new AOPA “Focused Flight Review” as a tool for educators. The dedicated team at AOPA, in collaboration with SAFE and other incustry players, has assembled a wonderful resource library for inspiring pilot proficiency. And this is useful for training at any level, not just the flight review. Teaching this syllabus injects risk management and judgment into the world of legacy operators who often never encountered risk management in their initital training. Too much technology magic can defeat a once proficient pilot quite rapidly. Expand your flight envelope with hands on flight training, fly safe (and often)!


Please “follow” our SAFE blog to receive notification of new articles. Write us a comment if you see a problem or want to contribute an article. We are always seeking more input on aviation improvements and flight safety. There are many highly qualified aviation educators out there! 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. Lastly, use our FREE SAFE Toolkit App to put pilot endorsements and experience requirements right on your smart phone and facilitate CFI+DPE teamwork. Working together we make safer pilots!