"The Part 23 review will also look at improving safety by revising pilot training requirements. One of the recommendations in the certification process study is to "re-emphasise the difference between stall warning and aerodynamic stall". This could result in more stall training in simulators to highlight the procedures required for recovery. "We need to get back to teaching stall and stall recovery, big time," Colomy says.

The FAA is also being urged to mandate more training at VREF approach speed. Colomy says the number one cause of business jet accidents are runway overruns and business jet pilots are typically taught on simulators to make approaches that ensure soft landings for the passengers rather than ensure the minimum amount of runway is used. The certification study asks the FAA to "reconsider establishing VREF training and operational check ride margins to encourage pilots to fly at VREF -5/+5, especially when operating on minimum length fields".

Several industry associations were involved drafting the study, including the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association."

We have an opportunity here to take the reins. AOPA has a flight training section, but I think between us, we have the background to craft a really good approach.

We can use this efort to really put our name on the map, rather that being referred to as the alternative to NAFI.

Robert

Personally I am shocked at the lack of training provided by some of the regional airlines. The attitude seems to be "if the FAA don't require it, we don't do it." Unfortunately FAA standards take time to update. I am not blasting all regional airlines. I was able to see both sides at one airline. When I was first hired, we were given minimal (FAA standards)training by a third party. It was weak. By the time I upgraded training was "in house" and the amount of time had more than doubled (simulator and ground)- not due to FAA requirements, but for things the training department felt we needed to be trained on. Areas that were identified during situations at this airline (no accidents), or accidents at other airlines were incorporated into training, even when not required by the FAA. The DO said it the first day. "We will spend more time and money on training you than is required. But any extra costs will be more than offset by the savings, both in money and lives, if we prevent just one accident."
The only way I see this changing accross the board is- and I hate to say this- through the legal system. Major airlines need to be held financially liable in courts for accidents at their feeders. When the dollar cost of lawsuits exceeds the savings they get from using the lowest bidder they will begin to take a long look at the training in their feeder airlines.

Jerry Painter wrote a nice piece here that discusses our choices as instructors spending our time teaching rudder skills v TAA skills.

Yes, we can do more in the stall arena while steering clear of spins. My students have read enough about spins that they believe a spin lies just on the other side of every stall. For those who ask, sure, I spin with them. For the others, the answer is the falling leaf exercise. One can fly a stall down a thousand feet or two by doing the faling leaf. If this exercise doesn't get the student on the rudder, nothing will.

How does this translate to the FAA? It means that the PTS must include a falling leaf demonstration. Otherwise, if it isn't on the test, no one will teach it.

I volunteer to write a sample TASK. You all can criticise it. Then we can propose it.

If we are to be an effective training organization, we need to offer concrete suggestions, not just grouse about NAFI and the sub-optimal training provided by the regional airlines.

Robert

While I think the falling leaf stall is a useful exercise I'm not convinced that it is a PTS type item. I have actually seen incorrect teaching of it (or incorrect understanding... which means learning did not take place), almost lead to a spin in a 182.
I have mixed feelings about the teaching of spins in the airplanes. If it is done correctly in a proper airplane, I'm all for it. I offer (and encourage), my students to go through a spin module during their training. I've also seen some scary and disappointing things with CFI applicants. I've had some tell me a stall is when you fly too slow; a spin is when you slip the airplane; I've had CFI applicants complain that I want them to teach me about stalls/spins- they only need the endorsement, "Why should I have to teach you about spins?"; I've had CFI applicants balk at doing more than one flight for their spin endorsement- their friend will take them up and do it in one flight.
Spin training for student pilots by CFIs who don't know what they are teaching and in airplanes that should not be spun will do little to improve the stall/spin accident rate. I guess my gut feeling is that the problem lies with the first line of defense- the CFIs teaching spin awareness to student pilots. A good start might be to increase the recurrent training requirement for CFIs, much like what doctors must do. Actually, I should write "make" a recurrent training requirement for CFIs... there really is not one unless you count the CFI renewal courses. I encourage my clients to get some kind of training event at least once a year that counts as a flight review, and never do the same thing two years in a row. Spin training, mountain training, tail wheel training, an additional rating, etc. I would like to see CFIs do the same. It could easily be worked into the renewal requirement for CFIs. Heck, I know CFIs who have been teaching for years yet only have the one or two spins they did for the intial CFI.

Hello Sam --

If you don't like the falling leaf as a PTS task, then what do you suggest in the alternative? New airplanes like the Cirrus and Columbia are certificated with different spin standards than other airplanes. Don't you think that that requires a different approach to the Spin Awareness task?

I understand you to suggest that instructors be go through a flight review process, rather than one of the existing recurrency paths.

This is will require some new thinking at the FAA. Only pilots are required flight reviews. Other airmen can fufill by classroom education or demonstration that they have exercised the priveleges of their certificates. A&Ps must practice. IAs must do annual inspections or go to a seminar. Do your think that the other members of SAFE will support a biennial instruction review for themselves?

You bring up a good point: We could demand review and testing on any of the areas of specialty we advertise. My certificate says I am a seaplane instructor, but I am no more qualified to teach than fly to the moon. I am current in tailwheel instruction, in spins and unusual attitudes, on the Hudson River, and in international operations.

Let's apply the groundrule of brainstorming to theis thread: if you want to criticize, first you have to offer an new alternative.

Robert

Robert

I did provide an alternative, and I hardly slammed you for the falling leaf exercise suggestion.
Some CFIs may not like the idea of going for flight reviews, but do we want CFIs around who are still teaching the way they learned 40 years ago, with no updates to his/her sills? Do you want a surgeon operating on you who has not updated his skills in 40 years? As an airline captain I had simulator events every 6 months and ground school once a year. Being a CFI is more demanding and hazardous, but the currency requirements are lower.
If we want to improve safety I think we should begin by not looking at others and their training, but by looking in the mirror and at our training.

My appologies if I read what you wrote incorrectly. My initial impression is that this was arising from the recent regional airline crash, but after re-reading your post I am not so sure.

Hello Sam --

My post came specifically from the FAA preoposed revision of Part 23 and the possibility it will change stall training.

I added a couple of comments as a result of the Colgan accident. That crew either forgot their primary training in stalls, or were distracted by the recurrent training they get that emphasizes tailplane stalls.

Our private candidates should not see tailplane ice.

Robert