Aviation Ideas and Discussion!

Pilots aspiring to fly professionally must first get “comfortable in the clouds.” We are *always IFR* and frequently in the clouds until minimums. So “step one” is lots of “actual” and this progresses over time to handling some pretty gnarly weather conditions. This article investigates the “edge of safety” – convective conditions with embedded tornadoes. Studying and learning about weather is a never-ending process, required effort if you want to stay safe. A lifetime of flying in different machines and conditions still provides new lessons daily (replay/reflect/redirect) but it also generates more questions. You can “build/buy hours” anywhere, but you only “gain experience” in real conditions. The key to safety is to always have a well-thought-out plan, a margin of safety, and a bullet-proof escape route if things change, (and they usually do).

A Severe T’Storm Warning is in effect for the Quad Cities until 2:45 p.m. as a storm with winds up to 60 miles per hour is moving North through the Quad Cities. The NWS has also issued a Tornado Watch for areas just barely SE of the Quad Cities.

For the date of May 20, the most precipitation ever recorded in Davenport, IA  history is 3.50 inches which happened in 2025.

So, Where Do You “Draw the Line” for Safety?

The golden rule to staying safe is defining and maintaining a personal “margin of safety.” In commercial flying there are General Operating Manual (GOM) minimums and “Operations Specifications” (OpSpecs) which are approved exceptions to many rules. Then, of course, there is also the customer pressure to fly, which you very early have to learn to ignore completely for flight safety. Lots to ponder and parse for safe flight!

The commonly taught parameters to analyze aviation threats are: Pilot-Aircraft-enVironment-External conditions. There are the heart of any ACS flight test and also a very usable structure for safety.  As pilots, we progress incrementally through graduated levels of challenges. Only as we gain skill and experience can we safely overcome greater challenges. Honest self-analysis is the most important (and difficult) meta-skill required to drive this risk-management engine. Excluding emotions from the analysis is difficult too.

Ultimately, we always need to resolve the question, “Am I accurate and honest in this analysis of conditions vs skills?” For this reason, in tough conditions, I always solicit a second opinion. In many cases, step one is to wait for a “safe weather window!” Weather planning always involves the “3Ds of viable safety action:” Delay, Divert, Drive!“A well-trained sport pilot can be safe in “very visual conditions!” Adding a private certificate and an IFR-rating (and currency) with experience in actual and “safe conditions” yeilds greater capability, but more complicated risk analysis. And the capability of the flying machine makes a huge difference. Growing up in a rural setting, we used to say: “Anyone can safely drive a slow tractor around a fifty-acre fenced-in field,” because everyone started operating heavy equipment at 12. We progress to where to are in the flight levels, navigating mature weather systems.

Professional pilots – potentially ATP-rated co-captains flying a highly capable jet – can safely navigate CAT II landing and very challenging enroute conditions safely. These same conditions would be unsafe or unwise for less skilled or experienced pilots flying more basic equipment.

I wrote another blog years ago on safely negotiating convective activity (that created some murmuring among the “safety yenta“) but remember, this was two highly-experienced pilots flying in a well-equipped jet.

If I were flying  my Cherokee Six yesterday, this trip would be a clear “no-go.” The capability of the machine is a huge factor in any aviation decision-making process. A jet can top most convective activity en route. But it has unique safety concerns like safety on the ground (a necessary hangar) and the requirement for a return flight later. This adds built-in safety pressure to get everyone home: the “mission mentality” has to be managed carefully.

When you are single-pilot, “teamwork” means studying weather and airspace carefully and using the local professionals you have at your disposal (see Hobie’s SRM blog). Departure at the end of this day was definitely nasty requiring some delay and initially looked unworkable (the jet was in a hangar and the TSMs were rolling through). But once the biggest nasty stuff moved east – and it was clear to the west –  a workable strategy finally developed. The plan was to climb in the clear, then turn east and top the storms (which were diminishing at this point). The question was how to make this climb possible with local IFR at the departure (KDVN – non-tower) and busy Chicago to the east?

A call to the local (Quad-city) departure radar (use your local resources) provided a solid plan based on comprehensive local knowledge. Initially fly straight north clear of convective to DBQ.  This got me north of a lot of the weather and also Chicago traffic at ORD and MDW (this would have prevented an unrestricted climb).  This ensured a “clear climb corridor” east to Northbrook VOR (OBK). This routing was added to the IFR plan and assured the ability to get up and over the convective. When you are consulting with ATC they will almost never state a specific plan due to liability, but the information is there for the savvy pilot. Plan B was obviously to bug out to the clear area west of KDVN.

The last sticking point with my self-assessment of this plan was this ominous statement: “We do not know the actual tops because no one else is flying.” This sounded scary to me. A good pilot must always maintain their humility and ask the most important question: “Am I doing something dumb or unsafe here?” (one reason crewed flight is 7X safer than SP) See “Combat Advice”

Call an experienced and trusted pilot friend!

With tough weather decisions, always seek the independent counsel of a seasoned second opinion. I personally maintain a list of trusted senior pilots whom I can call and check my planning!” This is what we do in a crewed situation. “Am I thinking straight here?” and “What would be *your* plan for this operation?” Combine this feedback with a sure-fire “Plan B.” With serious convective conditions, that always requires an absolutely solid escape route (in this case head west).

It all worked out so well, the passengers never felt a bump. They mentioned how smooth is was after my instructions to “keep the belts tight and no beverages on departure.” They probably figured any schlump could fly on a day like this (never make that error in judgment). I’d rather be “chicken little,” than Icarus.

As I write this, all the weather I flew over yesterday rains down on me once again; retribution! Always *reflect* on your flying experiences. Fly safely out there (and often)!

 

---

Flight test anxiety is one of the most common obstacles to success during an FAA evaluation. It occurs at every level, from initial PPL to jet type ratings! This webinar will offer solutions based on scientific techniques to quiet those test-day butterflies and ensure a better experience. A calm, confident applicant presents their best performance on flight test day!

The Japanese term “Shisa Kanko” loosely translates as “pointing and calling.” More accurately, it involves the safety practice of pointing at important indicators and calling out their status. This practice was developed by the Japanese railway system in 1913 and has led to an incredible level of safety and efficiency in that system. According to Dr. Mica Endsley, 76.3% of aviation accidents studied occurred from a simple failure to perceive the risk. Safety depends on awareness.

Pointing and calling are methods for raising the consciousness level of workers and confirming that conditions are regular and clear, increasing the accuracy and safety of work.

For those unfamiliar, Japan’s Shinkansen (bullet train system) has had ZERO passenger fatalities in 60 years of operation and carries 400,000 people a day (more than impressive). The system has such a high standard of efficiency that a train off schedule by even 3 seconds is rare. This stands in sharp contrast to American operations, where minutes to hour-long delays in mass transit are common and accident investigations unfortunately still discover operators who are texting or operating under the influence.

The act of actually pointing and calling the desired operation seems to raise our human awareness to the conscious level. This avoids those “brain fart” moments that in high-consequence environments can lead to fatal accidents.  Several studies confirm that this “pointing and calling” prevents 85% of these common human errors. This incredible level of safety should be imported into aviation. The adoption of aviation-style checklists into hospital operations (by Peter Pronovost)  resulted in an incredible safety improvement: Checklist Manifesto.

“In the Keystone Initiative’s first eighteen months, the hospitals saved an estimated $175,000,000 in costs and more than 1,500 lives. The successes have been sustained for almost four years—all because of a stupid little checklist.” – Atul Gawande, The Checklist (The New Yorker, December 2007)

If you study our 200 million-year-old human operating system (brain), most of our daily activities are performed simply (and mostly efficiently) by habit. But we did not evolve this system in the modern technological world. Habits function pretty well in a predictable, safe environment, where failures are mostly inconsequential. But without metacognition (higher-level double-checking) habit fails badly in aviation.  Raising the awareness to a higher Code Yellow level is essential for safety in changing, high-consequence situations. (See Dr. Gary Klein’s Streetlights and Shadows)

Correct checklist usage requires verbalization and conscious, aware consideration. It is essential to actually say every item and consider it at a conscious level.  Just mumbling your way through a long list will not enhance safety, since we are operating at a lower level of awareness.

Many larger flight schools are already using the ‘pointing/calling” technique when taxiing: “Clear right, center, and left, turning left…” “Pointing and calling” raises every operation to the metacognitive level of awareness.  In crewed operations, this vocalization also “shares the mental model.” I encourage pilots I am training to vocalize every switch or control they change. I had a learner in a jet fail to turn on the tail boots switch in some horrible winter conditions recently. (He turned on two out of three green toggle switches and I missed it from the right seat). We landed with an amazing load of ice on the tail – and this could have killed us. This was all from one missed toggle switch (aviation is unforgiving). 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!

---

 

Join us May 11th for a free webinar This will have John Dorcey, a long-time CFI who prepares CFIs for testing.  We will discuss how to prepare for the Initial CFI evaluation. 

If time allows, we hope to also add some advice on the “real job” of becoming a truly effective aviation educator. What you learned to acquire that CFI temporary is only half the job; CFI-PRO™ provides the “Missing Manual” of how we really teach.

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!

Satellite-guided instrument approaches arrived way back in the 1990s. This technology has provided greater accuracy and ultimate economy for pilots – once that $50K panel is installed. Combined with moving map technology for situational awareness, this whole world of instrument approaches has changed for the better. Just describe an NDB approach to an IFR newbie to witness confusion and fear; *that* is “non precision!”

“GPS Alphabet Soup” Take an L and a V and even a NAV. Add a P and mix em all around. What do you get? You get a total of five different GPS approaches to sort out. IFR Mag

This constantly evolving SBAS “alphabet soup” has created confusion and led to an occasional lack of safety. The flight training and testing world struggles daily seeking clarity: “What are the ‘legal minimums’ for this approach?”, “What equipment and data verification are necessary to be ‘legal?‘”  and “What are the approach and alternate requirements given the installed equipment?”  Applicants for flight tests and senior pilots alike suffer from the confusing “designation of the week” as the satellite technology continuously evolves. Hybrid satellite/ground-based approaches have appeared with little explanation and training (“How do we enter this ILS 23 at KMMU?”) Pilots struggle to set up and fly these approaches safely. But at least most of the “scud-runner” IFR approaches (proceed visual) are mostly gone now.

Some clarity is finally coming with the FAA’s integration of the ICAO 2D/3D clarification. Lateral guidance to an MDA (baro-dependent) will soon be designated “2D” and approved vertical path guidance to a DA (RNAV point in space) will be defined “3D” in future FAA documents.

The non-precision approach definition in the Instrument ACS FAA-S-ACS-8C  is almost there: ” a published minimum descent altitude without approved vertical guidance.” (2D) That 300-foot limitation is now gone for training. Unfortunately for training/testing, it is almost impossible to find an approach when testing *without* some form of vertical guidance; e.g. an approach *requiring* step downs. (Serious safety concerns for a real MON situation – Green Needles!)

The ACS definition of an precision approach is simply: “a standard instrument approach procedure to a published decision altitude using provided approved vertical guidance.” (3D). These nicely match the ICAO 2D/3D distinction. This is made even clearer with the notes found in the Terminal Procedures Publication (TPP):

The actual 2D/3D FAA terminology will be published in the forthcoming revision of AC 90-119 “Performance-Based Navigation” available now in draft format. Section 12.3.1 finally distinguishes the 2D/3D approach definitions clearly. This should be published in final form later this year. Clarify your alphabet and 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!

 

 

 

 

SAFE “CFI Roundtable” at Prop 75

(Click on any image for a larger version)

SAFE “Ice Cream Social”

Three Instagram Reels With Sponsors

Lots of Volunteers (Thanks to All)!

Fun at the Booth!

Other Generous SAFE Sponsors at the Booth

New SAFE Lifetime Member John Carter won the Lightspeed Aviation Delta Zulu Headset at our “CFI Roundtable!” YOU can win in our Spring Sweepstakes.

SAFE Spring Sweepstakes; Join/Donate – WIN!!

For a chance to win; Join SAFE, “Step-Up” as a member, or donate $15 (or more). Lightspeed Delta Zulu, Aerox O2 System, or Sporty’s PJ2 Radio.

There is no such thing as a “Part 61 Flight School” CFR 14 (FARs), but you hear this phrase all the time. A part 61 operation is just a collection of individual FAA CFIs, usually under a single employer, connected to a stable of aircraft and (hopefully) a common insurance policy. There is no FAA oversight or guidance (except for the regulations) for these organizations, yet they do 77% of all flight training in the US! Training under Part 141 is a much more tightly controlled environment, but sometimes that is exactly the problem; too hard to obtain and impossible to breathe!

If you instruct under CFR Part 61 you are individually responsible as the “certificated CFI” providing instruction regardless of how much guidance your organization provides. You are the PIC of this training and totally responsible if bad things happen (they come to see you)! Even the so-called “check pilots” under Part 61 training are a creation of this same private organization. They are not evaluated or approved by the FAA. Part 61 flight training has no Training Course Outline approved by the FAA, no required (or approved) syllabus and no Air Agency Certificate. Some of the largest flight training organizations (e.g. ALL-ATP “Flight Schools”) operate under CFR 61 and independently create and maintain their own private standards. Even if the CFIs are “employees” instead of “contractors,” in the eyes of the FAA each separate CFI is the responsible party under the authority of their personal CFI Certificate.

These Part 61 operations can be as good (or even better) than a 141 “FAA Pilot School” but there are many reasons they are not 141-Approved. If asked the common answers  are usually “all those 141 regulations inhibit good education” or “it’s impossible to get a 141 approval.” There are horror stories of the significant wait times and the associated costs. These are the problems that need to be fixed. If this system were operating correctly, “FAA-Approved Pilot Schools” would be the most common training and also provide consistently superior training. The Airline Consortium already submitted their (186 page) proposal for a new “super 141” system with many interesting initiatives. This was, however, created with no GA input.

With FAA 141 Modernization, there is a push for more of these Part 61 flight training entities to apply and qualify under Part 141 as “Approved Pilot Schools” with an Air Agency Certificate, and approved TCOs/Syllabi (announcement for input). Under this system, the FAA  would provide specific guidance, approval, and continuous oversight. The guiding document right now is AC-141-1B but this will probably be “modernized” also with the public input.

In “modernized 141,” the FAA would still have control over the quality of the training, but the new rules would be decided through industry input. The theoretical incentive for this transformation to Part 141 is that more of these new 141 Flight Schools would be approved for “examining authority,” at least to the private pilot level (and gradually increase with proven performance). With this approval, pilots graduating from an approved 141 course do not require a DPE part 61 flight evaluation; they graduate as fully fledged pilots. More information on SAFE’s position on 141 will be forthcoming (with member input).

All these parameters are under review and your suggestions as flight training providers are solicited by the FAA (Federal Register of curated meetings). The National Flight Training Alliance is the organization in charge of the process of input. Lee Collins  of NFTA.will be at the SAFE CFI Roundtable to discuss the process. Sporty’s even provided some guidance HERE at the Redbird Migration.

SAFE at Sun ‘N Fun: B-80/81

Please visit SAFE at booths B-80/81 at the center of the “Bravo” Hangar at SnF. We have SAFE hats, SAFE bling, even removable SAFE Tattoos plus incentives for joining and renewal (FOIs FAR/AIMs). And every new member has a chance to win a new Lightspeed Aviation Delta Zulu headset. Members at home can participate in this sweepstakes by donating $15 (or more) on the safe pilots member portal, or stepping up to a higher membership level. All proceeds go to our CFI Scholarship Program. Mike Shiflet will be broadcasting his “Power Hour” LIVE from the SAFE Booth Saturday at Noon. Attend live or tune in online here.

CFI Roundtable (FREE Ice Cream) Prop 75!

All CFIs and all SAFE members at any certificate level are invited to the SAFE CFI Roundtable on Saturday, April 5th at 16:00 in the Prop 75 Building (right across from the “Bravo Hangar)!” We need *everyone to register* so we know how much FREE ICE CREAM to buy. Mike Shiflet from CFI Bootcamp will be attending (and presenting), Brete Kobe from Sporty’s will talk about new CFI AI tools (free from Sportys), and Lee Collins (from NFTA) will discuss 141 Modernization.

CFI Roundtable (FREE to CFIs and SAFE Members) Add $15 for sweepstakes and win a Lightspeed Aviation Delta Zulu Headset!

Sorry for the “big word,” but this is the secret skill all excellent CFIs use (even if they have not heard this term). “Metacognition” simply means “thinking about thinking.” This is a higher level of awareness that allows a person to transcend the present situation and acquire an overview. This is almost in the “third person,” observing from an outside reference point. This is how an excellent CFI knows upon entering the pattern on a 45° angle, that their learner will be “high and unstable” 3 minutes before it happens. Metacognition is the CFI “spidey sense” that enables the split-brain capability, or the “all-seeing third eye.”

When we notice ourselves having an inner dialogue about our thinking and it prompts us to evaluate our learning or problem-solving processes, we are experiencing metacognition at work. This skill helps us think better, make sound decisions, and solve problems more effectively.

Metacognition is not (unfortunately) mentioned in the Aviation Instructor Handbook, but is the critical higher-level skill that enables safe aviation education both on the learner level and for the CFI. For empowered learning, metacognition builds learner motivation;  empowering learners with the responsibility for their skill acquisition and growth -“incremental mastery!” If you read the blog on “situational awareness,” metacognition is the “meta” level of situational awareness (micro-macro-meta) that stands above the immediate attention to the present situation. Metacognition sees the bigger picture and adjusts current activities based on the timeline of future outcomes.

Metacognition is crucial for the design and implementation of appropriate educational and intervention techniques. Unless we adequately tailor our metacognitive skills, we cannot solve any problem, simply because we cannot understand what the problem really is. Accordingly, if the educator does not practice his/her own metacognitive skills first, he/she will not be able to assist the students properly MORE

So how do we develop and deploy this magic skill?

The Aviation Instructor’s Handbook never addresses metacognition directly. This aptitude resides in the HOTs (Higher Order Thinking Skills – prefrontal cortex) part of the human brain. If you look at page 3-24 “Stages of Skill Acquisition” you get an idea of where this would occur in the hierarchy of skill acquisition. The first step in learning any skill is deliberate rote practice; monkey see, monkey do. This progresses into a habitual, automatic performance of familiar tasks. At the expert level skills are performed in a fluid and subconscious performance.

Dr. Gary Klein created a method for deconstruction expert piloting skills in the 1970s during the first gas crisis during the Carter administration. Under a contract with the USAF, he studied “What makes an expert different from a beginner, and can these skills be harvested and transmitted more effectively?” His Cognitive Task Analysis drilled down into this “acquired automaticity” found in expert aviators and discovered the presence of metacognition in these expert performers.

It turns out that tasks created intentionally with endless repetition in the cortex (HOTS) are subsequently stored in the brain’s striatum like books on a shelf. These skills are available for fluid execution at a future date. The expert performer can access these scripts to perform a task fluidly while adding levels of perfection and polish invisible to the beginner (metacognition).

This expert-level performance is enabled through the myelination of necessary neural pathways; basically “broadband speed” neural circuits 300X faster than initial execution. Everything we think or do is a neural pathway. At the expert level, mental resources are freed up for metacognition; global oversight.  A performer at this level can iterate skill execution in a manner indistinguishable to a beginner (Recognition-primed decision RPD). A master performer can simultaneously”see the whole picture.”  When you watch Rob Holland fly aerobatics or an Olympic athlete perform, this is how that performance is possible.

To be truly excellent and safe, a CFI needs to reach a level of skill performance that frees up mental resources to see beyond the moment. This metacognition allows a CFI to forecast the trajectory of the flight, both in terms of the maneuver and energy, but also anticipate  the learner’s next moves. Some level of this skill should be present in a CFI applicant testing for an initial certificate. If an applicant is still struggling to perform a maneuver, or cannot fly and talk at the same time (babbling), they have not yet reached a safe level of educator. And the temporary CFI certificate is only the “student teacher” level of skill. Hours of on-the-job teaching build a much stronger skill set for an excellent educator. Fly safely out there (and often)!

---

8 Pillars of Metacognition, Gary Kline

---

See you at Sun ‘N Fun 2025! SAFE will be in the “Bravo Hangar” right in the center #80-81.

FREE ice cream at our “SAFE CFI Roundup” (Sat. 1600 @ Prop 75) with lots of CFI news (speakers) and Q&A discussion. Register to attend and win a Lightspeed Delta Zulu headset (and other prizes).

Author Doug Stewart is a former Executive Director of SAFE. He is also a full-time flight instructor, DPE, and thirteen- time Master Instructor. He is the 2004 National Instructor of the Year. He has provided more than 13,300 hours of dual instruction. Original PDF

Pilots who inadvertently fly from VMC into IMC conditions frequently end up in a fatal accident. Anyone who has taken the time to review the fatal accident statistics found in the Nall Report or in the NTSB records can see this is true. Further, the rate and percentage of VMC–into-­‐IMC fatal accidents has not decreased in any significant fashion in many years. Thus the question comes to mind: “Why have we not been able to improve these statistics and effectively teach pilots the proper strategies to keep them from needlessly killing themselves?”

From my experiences and perspective as an instructor and designated examiner, the answer is simple and twofold. The first part is due to the immutability of the “rule of primacy:” The things we learn first are the things that stick and are hardest to unlearn. Many CFIs are not teaching the first three hours of basic instrument attitude flying using realistic scenarios in their curriculum, nor are they teaching safe IMC escape strategies.

Wrong Mindset Leads to Disturbing Statistics!

Inaccurate instruction leads to a mentality among newly minted pilots that flying in the clouds is not difficult and that inadvertent IMC is relatively easy to escape. Unfortunately, neither of these are true. Looking at the statistics we quickly see the lethality of inadvertent IMC encounters.

The most recent 22nd Nall Report shows that whereas barely 5 percent of all accidents occurred in IMC, these accidents accounted for 18 percent of the total fatal accidents. Of the 43 weather-­‐ related fatal accidents, 67 percent were attributed to VMC into IMC. Almost two-thirds of all IMC accidents were fatal compared to about 15 percent of day-­‐VMC and 20 percent for night-­‐VMC.

From the NTSB database covering the years from 2003 – 2012, there were 1,100 accidents identified and reviewed as IMC accidents, 319 of which were identified as VFR flight into IMC. Of those accidents that reported environmental or weather factors: 126 involved low ceilings; 62 involved clouds; 58 had fog as a factor, and 40 were below VFR minimums. Said another way, just short of 90 percent of weather-related accidents had low ceilings and low visibilities as a major factor. The statistics clearly point to the problem.

The Current Flawed Instructional Method

Let’s look at some of the problems with how basic attitude flying is most often taught. Ideally, student pilots have already received some ground instruction on a proper instrument scan prior to their first “instrument” lesson in the airplane. If their instructor has been negligent in providing this, then hopefully the pilot has studied on their own. And sad to say, there are probably some learners whose initial introduction to the “hood” came as a total surprise when the instructor grabbed the controls and instructed the client to put on some kind of ill-fitting view-­‐limiting device.

Regardless of how the student pilot arrived at that point during a flight lesson when they first experience flying “on the gauges,” the experience is that of one moment seeing the glorious world from the vantage point of an airplane and the next, seeing nothing but a panel full of confusing instruments that might not be making any sense. For the next three hours of their instrument instruction required for the Private Pilot certificate, whenever they have to put on the “foggles,” their encounter with simulated IMC is an instantaneous one, so unlike the real-­‐world encounter that might someday take their life.

The learner’s first hour of instrument instruction will most likely consist of the basics: straight and level; turns, both left and right (and unfortunately usually at standard rate); constant speed climbs; constant speed descents; and perhaps recovering from unusual attitudes. Then for the next two hours of instruction (it’s rare that I find applicants for a Private Pilot Certificate with more than a tenth or two more than the minimum 3 hours required) it’s more of the same with perhaps less and less coaching. Hopefully at some point in the course of learning, the instructor will discuss what to do if the pilot inadvertently flies into a cloud.

Where We Fail Our Learners

This is the point where we are most profoundly failing our learners. Not only are we not teaching scenarios that realistically represent how pilots get caught in IMC, but we are also teaching unsafe exit strategies. Instructors seldom discuss the real situations that lead to inadvertent IMC encounters. It seems that way to me, based on the reactions of some of the Private Pilot applicants I’ve tested. When I ask: “OK – you just realized you can’t see the ground anymore… what are you going to do?” it’s as if it’s the first time they’ve ever considered the problem.

Not only is the learner pilot not taught the “why” of the lesson, but to add insult to injury, they are taught a potentially unsafe exit strategy… that being an immediate 180-­‐degree turn, at standard rate. In fact, I once heard a highly regarded instructor state: “If a pilot is not instrument rated and proficient, the only logical maneuver to perform is the 180v degree turn.” It is this advice that leads to the loss of control or CFIT accident that is killing so many pilots!

Consequently, many student pilots finish their primary training with the rule of primacy reinforcing two erroneous conceptions: 1. IMC encounters are instantaneous; and, 2. The only exit strategy is an immediate 180˚ turn.
Let’s discuss a more realistic and holistic approach to teaching our learners to not only have a way of safely exiting an IMC situation but perhaps more importantly how to avoid the situation in the first place.

Teaching Inadvertent IMC Correctly

Prior to teaching the techniques of an effective instrument scan we need to discuss with our clients how these encounters happen in the real world. Most pilots who have inadvertent IMC encounters don’t just suddenly and unexpectedly fly into a cumulous cloud at altitude. The real scenario is most typically one of lowering ceilings and visibilities as the pilot endeavors to reach their destination. As the ceilings lower, the pilot slowly descends, quite often not noticing that the visibilities are decreasing along with their altitude. At some point, the pilot recognizes that if they continue their descent it might end up as a CFIT accident so they level off and get closer and closer to the cloud bases and reduced visibilities. Finally, they realize they have lost sight of the ground, and can no longer fly the airplane using visual reference.

Now they revert to what they learned in their primary training… they make a 180-degree turn. But having never done this in real IMC, and further, by banking into a typically taught standard rate turn, they lose control. Consider the newly rated pilot in a Cirrus SR22 cruising at 180 knots. [Yes… there are more pilots out there in this type of aircraft than you might think…] The bank rate for a standard rate turn at that airspeed is slightly more than 26 degrees. For a pilot who is experiencing IMC for the very first time, this could be considered a steep turn.

If the pilot has gotten into this situation by descending in order to try and maintain visual conditions, now, if they do manage to maintain control as they turn, they unfortunately die in a CFIT accident as they turn into terrain or an obstruction.

We need to teach our clients how to recognize deteriorating weather and to make a diversion turn while they still can remain in visual conditions. If at all possible, give them the experience of flying in marginal conditions. With a good ATD or simulator, this should be easy, but if you do not have access to this great training technology, there will still be days when rather than canceling a lesson because of low (but legal) visibilities you can take advantage of the conditions. Take your client up for a dual flight when the visibilities are between 3 -­‐5 miles.

Let them experience how the closer to the clouds they get, the poorer the forward visibility becomes. The lesson does not have to be long, but it will be invaluable in teaching the dangers of flying in reduced visibilities.

The Details: Control, Climb, Communicate…

Also consider filing a short IFR flight on a day when you might otherwise cancel your session with a client because of IMC conditions, and take them up to experience the real thing. Request a block of airspace from ATC and then have your client fly the four fundamentals without any outside references. Consider taking your client through a recovery from an unusual attitude in IMC as well. This experience might very well save their life in the future.

First, we need to teach our clients to recognize deteriorating weather while they still have the opportunity to fly visually and to make that immediate 180-­‐degree turn˚ while they can still use visual references and at a safe altitude. Then we need to teach them a safe way to exit IMC if they do end up there inadvertently. Here is what I suggest.

The first thing they need to be taught is to not panic but do their best to trim for and maintain straight and level flight by using the scan techniques you taught them as a student pilot. and to get comfortable with the Five Cs: starting with Controlling the airplane solely by reference to the instruments. Teach them next to Climb. We all know the saying there’s nothing as useless as altitude above you…. If ever there was a time and place for this to be applicable it’s in this situation.

Now if we have properly taught them how to conduct a constant speed climb, they will hopefully know that the trim will maintain an angle of attack that if unchanged will also maintain airspeed. So to climb, the only control that needs to be touched is the throttle, and by adding power, along with a little right rudder as necessary to maintain heading, the airplane will climb at the same airspeed as when they were level.

With increased altitude there’s not only less of a chance of a CFIT encounter but also a much better chance to be seen by radar, and to be heard on the radio. Thus, once they have leveled off, by reducing power back to their cruise power setting, teach them to Call for help and Confess their situation to ATC. (I advise my clients to declare an emergency because it is!) Your clients need to know that ATC will do everything in their power to guide the errant pilot to VMC conditions.

They now need to Comply with ATC instructions. If ATC tells them to turn, (and it’s rarely a 180-­‐degree turn), hopefully, you have taught them that their steepest bank should not exceed 10-­‐degrees.. With a shallow bank, they will have a much easier time maintaining altitude and much less likelihood of losing control. After all they are not in a race to get turned around, and a steep bank has a much better chance of getting them into a race into the ground.

When ATC tells them to descend, again, only one control needs to be touched to yield a constant speed descent… the throttle. Reducing power will provide a descent rate of approximately 100 FPM for every inch of manifold pressure, or 100 RPM for fixed pitch props.

In closing, let’s remember that although inadvertent flight from VMC into IMC is not the biggest killer among GA accidents, it has the greatest potential to end in a fatal accident. The things we teach our clients in their early days of training are going to be the things they retain. Thus, we have a responsibility to teach our learning pilots not only the safest way to exit IMC conditions but probably more importantly how to recognize real-world deteriorating conditions before they are encountered and provide them with the tools they need to make disciplined, good decisions. If we can do that we will go a long way in reducing the number of fatalities resulting from inadvertent VMC into IMC

---

There are three necessary ingredients to enable the creation of a safe and effective pilot. I personally code these as “head, hands, and heart” to facilitate simple identification and analysis; cognitive ability, hand-to-eye coordination, and motivation/teachability. Each gift is actually a cluster of capabilities that I look for carefully in every pilot candidate I teach or test. Some combination of these attributes seems to be necessary for ultimate success as a pilot. We can supplement and compensate for a deficit in one area to some degree. But sadly, extreme deficits cannot always be safely overcome – as we shall see.

Cognitive capacity and hand-to-eye coordination seem to be mostly gifts of nature (or developed early during the “growth opportunity of youth”- like languages). Some functionality can be improved in adulthood but only to a certain degree – there are physical boundaries. Working in LSA aircraft, I have successfully overcome some amazing physical deficits with learners – the Jessica Cox-type people. High motivation can overcome many deficits. And though for years, I thought otherwise, motivation  – heart – is an area of great promise for all educators.  Motivation *can* be built and bolstered.  Motivation is the engine that drives flight training. It can, to a great degree, overcome deficits in manual skill or cognitive capacity.

Head, the Cognitive Tools

A person does not need to be a genius to fly a plane safely (thankfully). But obviously, more complicated systems necessitate greater cognitive capacity. To a degree, motivation and hard work can compensate for a genetic lack in this area. I have met amazingly hard-working pilots who adapt well here; we are not flying the Space Shuttle.

Ironically, greater intelligence is occasionally also a barrier to aviation success. Working in an academic town, I have met true geniuses whose over-intelligence and perseveration prevent effective piloting (one I had to sadly tell to never fly for safety). Higher intelligence sometimes seems to travel with perfectionism – and even autistic tendencies – that prevent the mental flexibility necessary to pilot safely.

I trained one extremely high-IQ savant (tested 180+) who absolutely could not deal with any sudden change in the plan or environment. Any significant change emotionally upset him to the level that he totally lost functional ability; he “melted down!” He was cognitively so tightly scripted that any variation destroyed his ability to function and continue (not workable in flight). Extreme perfectionist tendencies prevent the adaptability necessary for successful aviation.  If the plan changes, many cognitively rigid pilots are disadvantaged to a degree. Though their planning is typically extensive and admirable, when the weather or environment throws them a curve they cannot quickly cope and adapt (critical safety skills in our world).

Other mental qualities are essential for aviation success. Resilience is an essential piloting skill that does not correlate psychologically with intelligence. The ability to emotionally accept setbacks and push on tirelessly is a trait Angela Duckworth at Penn identifies as “grit.” This is a distinct and critical component of success in most high-performance challenges. Dr. Duckworth tested military cadets at West Point during “beast week” and spelling bee contestants to develop a “Grit Scale.” Her well-written best-selling book explains the importance of this trait.

The most effective mental posture for successful (and safe) aviation seems to be the stoic disposition. Hoping for the best while simultaneously planning for the worst – cautious optimism – provides the flexibility to handle challenges while not defeating opportunities. I often compare this to a football quarterback as the ball is snapped. We need a solid, practiced plan of action, but must expect changing conditions, and execute on opportunities. Our profession demands the careful, flexible – even artful -execution of available options.

Hands, The Motor Skills

I have had the privilege of working with a few “golden-hands” pilots, who also had the mental capacity and motivation. Two of my students became “top hook” pilots in their Navy training. In my world, these are often people who have grown up with heavy equipment in farming families. Here they experience the “double blessing” of both manual training and trustworthy independence – natural PIC for piloting. As youngsters these people were independently and responsibly driving tractors on the farm by the age of 10. Introducing these people to aviation during a “Discovery Flight” is fascinating: “Are you sure you never piloted before?” I have completed some gifted people easily in the 141 minimum 35 hours since they had the trifecta of hands, head, and heart (and we were lucky with the weather). On the other hand, one unfortunate “golden hands” was not blessed with the mental capacity to safely pilot.  He was a heavy machinery operator who mastered the mechanical operation of the plane in only 5 hours (and could easily have soloed). Unfortunately, he completely lacked the mental capacity to fly safely – so sad!

Heart, The Motivation

Motivation is a largely untapped opportunity for education because it is often misunderstood as a “nature” rather than a “nurture” attribute. But motivation *can* be created by a patient and compassionate educator. The pathway to inspiring this magic power is curiosity. If a talented educator can light the spark of curiosity in a learner, they immediately get “focus for free!” And once attention is acquired and a channel of communication is established which can build into a “virtuous cycle” of intrinsic motivation. This is the magic of the youth-level STEM programs that have become increasingly widespread in the US. Curiosity (and peer affiliation) inspire the first steps that lead to passion, autonomy, purpose, and ultimately mastery (more on this next week). A certain amount of “teachability” is also essential to enable the educational relationship. Fly safely out there (and often)!

 

Join us this Sunday March 23 for a free webinar on flying the CFI initial evaluation. This demonstrates the “split-brain  aptitude” of flying, talking and avoiding danger while in the air. CFI-PRO™ provides the “Missing Manual” of how we really teach.