A few simple questions:

Do you find a low level of piloting skill demonstrated by a high percentage of BFR applicants?

Do your local DPE's (i.e., the FAA) place more emphasis on the oral than flying skills?

Do you wonder if you can really provide "quality" flight instruction if you aren't using TAA?

Can your students competently handle crosswinds? Can they recognize and correct unwanted yaw by looking out the window? Or do they leave their feet on the ground?

Do you still think DR, pilotage, ADF and VOR have a place in the curriculum?

Do 141 schools really provide better training than "freelance" flight instructors?

Can you really graduate safe and competent LSP's in 20 hours? Part 141 students in 35 hours? Part 61 students in 40 hours? Or do you have the feeling that FAA minimum "aeronautical experience" standards are just misplaced advertising hype that only serve to badly mislead your students? The old bait and switch?

I've been hoping that all of the hoopla generated by LSA and the widespread desire to simplify VFR flying would scale back the hype connected with glass panels and gadgets, at least in the Primary Flight Training World. Maybe someday it will. But the 20-hour LSP "program" is just a lot of advertising hype in my book, so no improvement there. I would love to see an equivalent emphasis placed on basic stick and rudder skills, both in training and flight tests--a little honesty about what it really takes to become safe and proficient would be nice, too. Glass panels and autopilots are fine and wonderful things, but should they replace DR and pilotage in the primary flight training curriculum? Are TAA the new standard flight training aircraft? Is avionics programming a more important skill than keeping the ball in the center (or not)?

Not in my airspace or with my wife or kids in the airplane.

Maybe spin training isn't an essential component of the training curriculum, but it sure wouldn't hurt if more folks knew what an incipient spin--to say nothing of fully developed spin--looks and feels like and what it takes to avoid and recover. A few loops and rolls never hurt anyone, either. Why do we have to relegate stick and rudder skill to a subset of aerobatics? Shouldn't that be the core of basic airmanship, "piloting proficiency?"

Safety is something we all want and expect. But are pilots who think they need a glass panel, GPS and an autopilot to fly and are barely able to control their aircraft, TAA or otherwise, "safe?"

In the mean time I guess I'll just keep on insisting that my students really can handle crosswinds, DR, pilotage, have basic stick and rudder skills and know what a spin entry and recovery looks and feels like. If it takes 70 hours or more of training before I can be comfortable graduating students and then renting my airplanes to them so they can take family and friends along, c'est la vie.

Insurance policies are nice security, but no substitute for piloting skill. And they don't make the dead live again.

Why is there a "pitch or power?" thread on this site? Aren't we all "professional" pilots who ought to know "what it takes?" Why all the confusion?

Thoughts?

Hello Jerry --

Excellent post. I'd like to start with the last point first.

I ran into a guy who for decades had been teaching elevator for altitude and throttle for airspeed. I'm open minded. I listened to the argument. And maybe it's the right way to fly a Tupolev on an ILS. In the end, I've rejected for my students. The discussion helped me though.

If there is only one way to teach, then we should skip this forum altogether, and just send everyone a copy of Kerschner's book. I'm hoping instead to hear some lively discussion, and from it, synthesize a better way to deliver the message to my students.

**************************************

Face it, Garmin 430s and G1000 panels are the way of the future. There is no longer a need to teach ADF, just as there is no longer a reason to teach Consolan, AN ranges, or light ranges. The moving map is simply easier to understand than two CDIs.

We gray hairs can bemoan the loss of rudder skills. The fact is that rudder skills aren't required in most airplanes like they were in Cubs or Stinsons.

If we want to have jobs as flight instructors, we need to fufill our student's fantasy of flying a G1000 equipped airplane. That what the ones with money want to fly. There simply isn't a big market out there for tube and fabric taildraggers.

Speaking of tube and fabric taildraggers, there are a bazillion proven aircraft out there that meet the LSA standards. Do students want a $20,000 certificated airplane made of easy to repair fabric? No. They want a pop-riveted model with a steerable nosewheel and lots of electronics. They are talking with their checkbooks. We may know better what they need to fly and be safe, but unless we listen to them, we won't be part of the future. It's like music. You may know that Beethoven or the Beatles is better than hip-hop, but if you want to fill an arena, you better deliver what sells.

*****************************

Spins and recoveries? I teach them. And I recommend that my SAFE brothers and sisters do too. But before you do, you need to learn the state of the art. In 1948 all aircraft, even those placarded against spins, were required demonstrate one turn with recovery in one turn. Today, that's no longer the case. There are aircraft flying today that have not demonstrated any spin recovery capability to the FAA as a part of certification. In some of them, the only recognized spin recovery technique is to deploy the parachute.

Enough for now.

Robert

Hi Robert--

Where to begin... Tupolev on an ILS? Say what? One way to fly? Hmmmm.

Yes, new and shiny are nice, tho maybe not if "pop-riveted," especially not if out-of-reach expensive, regardless of electronics. More to the point, how many aspiring pilots have ever heard of "TAA?" Or know the difference between steam gages and G1000? So why place all the emphasis there? Plain old Sales Talk and nothing to do with flying qualities or skills, especially for beginning pilots.

Are we spreading the joy of SAFE flying or are we just avionics sales folk?

You bet I'm excited about LSA, ever since I first flew J-3's, Champs etc. 40 years ago. My 63-year-old C-140 (not LSA) still looks like new, flies great and is a wonderful trainer. Inexpensive ($60/hr), too. Lots of those LSA eligible (or not) old tube 'n rag airplanes are being resurrected for training--good! Here at KAWO my flight school neighbors and I all offer "low-cost" as well as more expensive "TAA" training. The most popular airplanes? Those with the lowest cost--my C-140 and their tube 'n rag, 65hp, no electrical system, armstrong starter Champs and J-3's. Nobody learns to fly in 20 hours, tho, regardless of hardware, software or hype. Yes, we all have more complex, expensive airplanes, too, G1000 included. The more complex and expensive the airplanes, the less they fly.

In any case, for most of us flying is plenty exciting regardless of the hardware. No need to fill aspiring pilots full of misleading sales talk with little or no immediate application. Let's emphasize the fun and satisfaction of learning to FLY! well. That's what folks want. It may not be "fast-food-easy," LSA, G1000 or otherwise, but it sure is fun (satisfying and long-lasting, too!) and just about anyone can learn to do it, safely and well. A little less salesmanship and a little more airmanship just might improve the accident statistics, too.

Yes, the rudder may be the most important and is surely the most neglected control in airplanes. Too bad all airplanes aren't 2-control Ercoupes, eh? That would undoubtedly put an end to a big slice of the most common accidents: takeoff and landing. But the fleet is not made up of Ercoupes, much as I like 'em, so I guess we'll just have to train using all three controls 'til then.

Yes, I love G1000 et al, too, but how many are out in the field? A very small percentage of the fleet for the simple reason that new airplanes are waaaay out of reach for most of us, flying schools and individuals, LSA, TAA or G1000. $20K is a stretch for most folks.

Is learning to fly really about learning to program a GPS/autopilot? For some, at the right time, maybe. Funny thing, but TAA accident statistics are dismal--maybe they're not the big safety advance hyped. But DR and pilotage ARE still necessary skills for ALL of us, G1000 etc. notwithstanding. And most of us, not just "students," still haven't quite mastered the basics of aircraft control. Isn't it just common sense to place the emphasis there? And there are still lots of ADF's out there--lots more than approach-approved GPS's--and NDB approaches, too, so ADF has its place. But the main thing is, most of the checkbooks I see wince at the cost of ALL airplanes--whether $10K Ultralights or $300K 172's. Doesn't much matter, tho, they just want to FLY and will never own aircraft of any kind. To my way of thinking "situational based" training is just another term for quality training, G1000 or nordo. Autopilot NOT required. TAA NOT required. Nor desirable for primary training.

The biggest problem I see in flight training is lack of both stick 'n rudder and, especially, teaching skills in the CFI cadre. The old gripe about needing better pay will stay with us until we deserve it, and it won't lower the cost of learning to fly. Forget the TAA and LSA sales talk, most of us just don't fly very well, CFI's and not a few ATP's and DPE's included. Too many CFI's have little teaching skill or interest in obtaining same. Not good. (BTW, I'm looking for a good, experienced, fly anything, part-time CFI--$50/hr).

So, let's skip dumbing-down and smarten-up instead. It's easy! Might even save some money and have more fun, too.

JP