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.
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.
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.
