Re-write the PPL syllabus

[Genghis the Engineer]

Okay, there's a lot of experienced pilots here - some of whom are instructors. Hopefully most of us can remember back to when we learned to fly. That was probably to a syllabus that hasn't changed much since about 1950.

So, I was wondering, if we leave the current 45 hours alone, what would we regard as "about right" for a new PPL syllabus, if we were starting from scratch?


I'll throw in my starter for 10:

Writtens: get rid of all the "terminology stuff" in the technical papers, switch to more about how light aeroplanes actually work,bin the cobblers "janet and john" aerodynamics, make met more about how to interpret safety of flight from forecasts. Air law to include permit aeroplane and pilot maintenance/ownership rules. So far as possible make it all open book so that people are showing they know how to look things up, rather than memorise pointless stuff like where a country's airspace starts and ends. Bring in some airmanship/CRM somewhere, probably in the currently rather lightweight HPL.

Hrs 1-15, basic handling, RT, circuits, emergencies use of checks, aiming for solo about hour 15. (Much as it's been since the 1920s - that bit works).

15-20, initial nav training - old fashioned DR stuff.

21-25, emergencies, lots of emergencies. Average sortie length about 45 minutes, lengthy briefs and debriefs. And real emergencies - not just the seldom-seen engine fire/failure - radio failure, jammed flaps, control restriction, the sort of stuff that actually happens.

25-35, integrated nav (using all the kit in the aeroplane from NDB to GPS, integrating with DR into true combined nav), with regular emergencies and complex RT along the way. Average sortie length here about 90 minutes.

36-40, airmanship, landings and circuits at different types of airports: to cover short grass strips and a busy mixed-traffic controlled airport as a minimum, airspace crossing, more practice emergencies along the way,

41: basic appreciation of how to fly on instruments - get rid of the deadly "180 out of cloud" which will kill most low hour pilots, replace with "descend/climb out of, maintaining wings level"

42: mandatory hour in a substantially different type, including briefing on how to read and learn your way into a new aeroplane type.

43-45: two short test profiles

46: test: which now does partially ded-reckoned nav, and partly fully-integrated nav, enhances airmanship, the student doesn't know what emergencies they're going to get, and those emergencies must be within normal flight, not at a special bit at the end.

G

[BackPacker]

I like it. Particularly the "substantially different type" part. Give the student the POH beforehand, and have a quick quiz about that just before the flight. V-speeds, TO/LD distances, emergency procedures, that sort of stuff.

What I also would like to see somehow is a discussion on "newer" engine types. I mean newer than the traditional Lycosaurus O-320 and such. For instance the different starting procedures of carbs vs. injection. Discussion of FADEC engines (both diesel and avgas) and the vastly different emergency procedures associated with them. Plus some specifics on diesel engines and maybe Rotax. That's probably something for the theory syllabus though.

Furthermore, can we squeeze in an "unusual attitudes" hour somewhere?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Sorry to divert from the second reply, but I am slightly alarmed at your "deadly 180 out of cloud". What is so deadly about it? The one time I saw a massive wall of sea fog coming straight at me (flying EBKT-EBFN at the time) I did make a 180° turn, but slowly and staying well clear of the stuff; and no harm came of it.

As to the subject of your post I have little to say, being a low-time microlight flier. Can only say it took me substantially more than 15 hours before solo, but that must have been due to my lack of youth and mental adaptability, added to several changes of plane, instructor, and environment.

I second Backpacker's remarks about the various engine technologies and how to handle them. Might be hard to find an instructor with experience/authority on all sorts, though.

Unusual attitudes came at a very early stage for me, even before first solo. Was limited to a straight ahead stall, though, spins being forbidden for microlights. After first solo I got sideslips, and when I mastered those, powerless landings. Powerless landings had to be sufficiently OK before I was released on solo cross-country.

[IO540]

The theory needs a massive overhaul. Most of it is irrelevant crap.

Another thing I think is a waste is the strong emphasis on going solo ASAP, and as a part of that the obscession with flying loads of circuits. Circuits are a very high workload activity and not a lot sinks in; the student just sweats like hell and goes brain-dead after half an hour. A short flight and a landing/T&G is more effective.

The flight test should have a requirement, like the FAA has, to demonstrate competence on all installed avionics.

[sunday driver]

Certainly time for an update.

Open book exams ... well there are some things that you need to pull out of the air when you're on the job - maybe a mix of open book and essential 'must know'?

How about some stuff on computer-based flight planning?

Definitely need much more on GPS

Agree about how to prepare for a new aircraft type using a real POH

Had to use light signals a couple of weeks ago - never done that for real before - it was a very bright day and I couldn't see them from a mile away.

Many schools have a diverse fleet with different panel fits - how many students can demonstrate what ALL the knobs do on the aircraft they fly (intercom panel, auto-pilot on/off?, what do all those circuit breakers do?)

AND

How about approach and land without an ASI?

SD

[Genghis the Engineer]

Jan - 180 whilst remaining VMC - yes. However, I was involved in a simulator study a while ago with a variety of PPLs and commercial pilots who we put in various unexpected situations in a sim. When we introduced an inadvertent flight into cloud, over 50% of the PPLs who tried to do a 180 out of it lost control and ended up in a stall/spin. Any pilot, of any experience level, who kept the wings level and either climbed, descended or flew through it survived the experience.

IO540 - I agree about the avionics, I'm not sure I agree about the early solo. It's both an excellent motivator, and brings us all over a step into much greater confidence in our own abilities. Plus learning to fly is supposed to be FUN, and I certainly remember the huge grin on my face after mine (which lasted at-least an hour until it had made me late picking my then-girlfriend up from work and she made her views on that abundantly clear :} ).

Unusual attitudes - I definitely forgot that one. Somewhere pre-solo, and then inclusion as another emergencies as those are practiced and practiced perhaps? Should be, I'd argue, integrated into everything else - as should emergencies, rather than treated as a discrete exercise.

Sunday - I've twice had to land with a U/S ASI, so definitely would include that in emergencies. Good point!

G

[Fuji Abound]

I agree the theory is in the most desperate need for an overhaul.

The practical is fine, giving the instructor enough compass to adapt to the needs of the student.

[MIKECR]

Its not just the PPL that needs updating, its the whole system from PPL to CPL and right the way through to the IR.

Take the CPL for example, its nothing more than a 'posh' PPL - 25 hours of glide approaches, PFL's, and finding small cottages on remote hillsides, all in a supposedly 'complex' aircraft(Piper arrow:rolleyes:). Now look at the 'average' CPL student - 99% of them must be youngs boys and girls destined to fly an Airbus. What use is the current CPL syllabus to them?

The IR is just as bad, in fact, dont get me started!:}

[Whopity]

The current PPL syllabus, both UK and JAA/EASA is down to Ron Campbell, who copied it from the RAF CFS in the mid 50s. The RAF syllabus dates back to Smith-Barry who introduced it at Gosport around 1917.

Like many syllabi of the time, theory was never well defined or quantified, and it has never ever been the subject of any form of training analysis. Exams were written around the text books available (initially Birch and Bramson) and later, the verbose Trevor Thom volumes, by a person who was not even a PPL Instructor! The introduction of JAR-FCL saw a few additions to the same old syllabus and questions became even more obtuse in an attempt to include ever more irrelevant items (e.g. Chicago Convention) deceided by a committee of non PPL instructors.

The JAA had 12 years to produce theory exams, but as the PPL was never meant to be part of JAR (AOPA proposed that it should be) it was never in their original plan. Having seen their attemt at proffesional exams, it is probably just as well they didn't. EASA now propose numerous ill conceived and totally unprepared new licences for different aircraft categories, at two different levels (PPL and LAPL) yet there is not an examination question in sight, neither is there any intention to produce any.

What we need is theory that reflects the practice at both PPL and professional level however; the chance of any change in the near future is Zilch. The CAA no longer employ any experienced ground examiners, EASA has none, and organisations like LPLUS (http://www.lplus.de/) are producing irrelevant junk at the professional level.

[what next]

Hello!

A few comments from me as well: I don't know which syllabus you are referring to, but I think the JAR syllabus is not so bad overall. What I would like to see is a greater distinction between a course that leads to a "pure PPL" and one that is a stepping stone towards CPL/IR and/or ATPL.

I instruct students from PPL onward, ninetyfive percent of whom will never fly cross-country VFR in their life again. Or piston engine powered aeroplanes, Or propeller driven aeroplanes. These girls and guys should be taught differently from those you will fly their minimum hours required to maintain their licenses for the next forty years. I have talked at length about this with our head of training on several occassions.

And regarding some of the points above:

- Open book exams: No no no no. Ok, get rid of useless stuff in the theoretical part, but the useful stuff must be memorised. There are lots of occasions (especially for pilots who really only fly the minimum hours required) where looking-up things up in the air is not an option.

- Emergencies: Train as many of them as possible. All kinds.

- Hours to first solo: Irrelevant. This only leads to a competition among students over which more important things are forgotten. If anything at all, the guideline should state the number of landings to first solo. (Our flying school for example is operating from an international airport with the nearest training airfield twenty minutes away. Every training flight, starting with number one! is a cross-country naviagtion flight of one hour minimum with only five to ten circuits. This way, our students typically need 25 hours to their first solo).

- Instrument training: The JAR syllabus includes this in a reasonable manner. We must keep in mind however, that a couple of hours under the hood or in a procedures trainer during the PPL will not save anybody who encounters bad weather five years later. We all know that instrument flying skills get lost very quickly (within weeks for some persons) and the best thing is to teach them to stay out of clouds.

- Modern avionics: Yes. In the year 2011, every pilot must be trained to navigate by GPS. He must know the good and bad things about it and know what his plan B can be. He must be able to pull information from a glass screen (almost every microlight is fitted with one now!) quickly and efficiently. Again: After their trainig, "my" students will never fly with conventional instruments again. Ever. Airliners (and bizjets too) have glass for their standby instruments since twenty years. Suction failure? Who cares, there is no suction that can fail. And even if, the latest iPhone will give you attitude, heading and navigation information for longer than the fuel lasts.
Get rid of the awful, useless ADF instead. We waste so much precious time during IFR training for this dinosaur. And if you ask me, no PPL holder needs to worry about VOR/DME navigation either.

- Radio telephony: Every student should come to his first practical lesson with a finished RT license. Training will be much more efficient and the instructor does not have to waste preciuos time (including briefing and debriefing) on teaching radio phraseology.

- And last but not least: I don't care about "pure PPL" students, but for those who train to become professional pilots: Please let them fly "point and power" approaches and teach them to fly by numbers (pitch and power) with proper speed control.

Happy landings,
max

[Unusual Attitude]

Some really excellent comments here, whats the thoughts on spin training as part of UA? I'm sure its been done to death by now on other threads however....

I was lucky enough to have been given spin training during my PPL many moons ago after I tried to pick up a dropped wing during stalling and over she went straight into a spin. The instructor decided it would be wise to cover the recovery so we did 3 or 4 different variations of spins. Obviously not part of the sylabus but it stuck in my mind and I've never tried to pick up a dropped wing with aileron since!
Cant even remember if I did spin training during my CPL or not it was so long ago?!?!?

Regards

UA

[what next]

Some really excellent comments here, whats the thoughts on spin training as part of UA?

How and by whom? I've been an instructor for twenty years now and spin training was already deleted from the syllabus when I got my own license. My instructor training didn't include spinning either. None of our training aircraft (mostly Pipers) is cleared for spinning. So we would have to send our students to some aerobatics instructor who does the training on his Pitts or Extra. Totally different aeroplanes from what they are going to fly with their PPL. Different spinning behavior, different recovery technique. We rather teach stall avoidance and proper speed control instead.

[Unusual Attitude]

How and by whom? I've been an instructor for twenty years now and spin training was already deleted from the syllabus when I got my own license. My instructor training didn't include spinning either. None of our training aircraft (mostly Pipers) is cleared for spinning. So we would have to send our students to some aerobatics instructor who does the training on his Pitts or Extra. Totally different aeroplanes from what they are going to fly with their PPL. Different spinning behavior, different recovery technique. We rather teach stall avoidance and proper speed control instead.

Interesting point, so what happens if a student does something daft during stalling like trying to pick up a dropped wing and puts the aircraft into a spin for which the instructor has never been trained to recover?

You can teach speed control all well and good but when something goes wrong it would be very easy for a low hours PPL to get distract and find themselves slow....pretty sure there have been several GA incidents over the years where the final moments have been an entry into a spin at low alt...

As for who / what, well I trained on C152's with mostly Mil / Ex Mil instructors who were more than comfortable with spinning, certainly no need for an Extra or a Pitts. :rolleyes:

Just my thoughts anyway, as I said its no doubt been done to death already and I can certainly see both the pros and cons for it.... I am however glad to have had the training though never had cause to use it other than intentionally...

[Fuji Abound]

It has been done more than a few times.

I think it is fair to say there are two schools of thought.

There are those that say it is far more important to learn how to avoid ever spinning and those that say every pilot should at least exerience a spin during their training.

The CAA appears to have sided with the first camp, I suspect mainly for reasons of risk and reward. In other words weighing the risk of spin training against the fatalities involving instructors during spin training has lead them to believe it was better to remove this element from the syllabus. I guess there are similarities with shutting an engine down at the annual renewal.

FWIW I have always thought it is a jolly good thing for every pilot to experience a spin at some point in their flying (I mean an intentional spin) but I am not convinced it should be a compulsory part of the PPL syllabus.

As the earlier poster comments there are now a lot of instructors who are unable to teach spins and many schools without suitable aircraft. If spin training were now re-introduced it would require some significant changes within the current training infra structure and I therefore dont think is likely any time soon.

[cats_five]

Jan - 180 whilst remaining VMC - yes. However, I was involved in a simulator study a while ago with a variety of PPLs and commercial pilots who we put in various unexpected situations in a sim. When we introduced an inadvertent flight into cloud, over 50% of the PPLs who tried to do a 180 out of it lost control and ended up in a stall/spin. Any pilot, of any experience level, who kept the wings level and either climbed, descended or flew through it survived the experience.


So no Cumulus Granitus in your simulator, and no cloud too high to climb out of...

[Unusual Attitude]

FWIW I have always thought it is a jolly good thing for every pilot to experience a spin at some point in their flying (I mean an intentional spin) but I am not convinced it should be a compulsory part of the PPL syllabus.

Would pretty much agree with that but if not during initial training then when as many PPL's will never go on to do aero's or anything that will let them experience spin entry?

Must admit I'm quite surprised that Spin training is not part of an FI rating as they are probably the most likely people of all to find themselves in that situation!

Some interesting analysis here on the subject though it is pretty old:-

spin recovery in fixed wing aircraft (http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/fxd_wing/spin_recov.htm)

Regards

UA

[IO540]

Interesting bit of history from Whopity, and unsuprising. I reckon the JAA IR exam syllabus is less than 10% relevant to flying, and it is obvious that most of it was produced by people who have never flown a plane.

My recollection of the JAA PPL stuff is that it is probably not a lot better, but being less of it (than in the IR) it is not so difficult.

[Fuji Abound]

Well it would not be compulsory so it is up to the pilot to make the effort, in the same way that IMO it is well worth every pilot making the effort to do more instrument training even if they dont do an IMCr or IR.

The schools and instructors also have their part to play. I suspect if they organised days when an instructor and suitable aircraft were available they would have enough takers.

I would encourage any newly minted PPL who is serious about their flying to manage a few hours with an instructor every year and use the time to push their boundaries.

[IO540]

One's input to this thread needs to be moderated by what might actually happen in the very backward UK system.

But if one was starting with a clean sheet, one would bring in a lot more instrument training, computer (laptop) based flight planning (nobody going places seriously is writing out a plog by hand these days) and a lot of operational stuff so people can actually go somewhere.

In the USA, a new PPL can fly almost anywhere in the USA - because they have a simple unified system, with no Customs, no PPR, mostly H24 airports, one language, and one publication which has the airport details in a unified description. A European PPL needs to be more job-oriented if it is to serve the customer.

[Contacttower]

Based on my experience of about 5 years ago I think the PPL syllabus should have much more emphasis on real world flight planning scenarios, examinations of exactly what weather conditions the completion of a VFR flight would or would not be safe under and a look at the practicalities of flying much longer distances and abroad.

Some of the things that I was not taught properly how to do during my PPL and had to be learnt later on; exactly how to use the NOTAMS system and what the different NOTAMS meant, how to file a flight plan, what the requirements were in terms of customs and police for flying abroad, how to find out that information, how to lean the aircraft properly, GPS and how it could be used and probably loads of others that I can't think of now but I've just sort of picked up along the way from PPRuNe and other instructors and pilots.

In terms of how we teach people to actually control and navigate the aircraft I don't think there is much wrong with the PPL I just think there could be much more emphasis on practical planning for likely post-PPL flights and giving people the knowledge and confidence to use their PPL in the real world.

[BackPacker]

It has been done more than a few times.

Yep. Very recent thread here:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/451575-spin.html

When I brought up the "unusual attitudes" words earlier today, I didn't just mean spinning. You can also think about accellerated stalls (load the wings up in a turn), full-power (departure) stalls, upset recovery from the inverted, recovery from spiral dives, flight well above Vno (close to Vne), maximum performance turning (think dead-end canyon), extreme sideslipping (think engine fire in the air).

This is then done not to teach the PPL student how to perform all these maneuvers to any sort of standard, but to let them know that in most flight regimes they are quite far from the edge of the envelope, and even when they get near the edge of the envelope from there, the aircraft is still fully controllable. But also to teach them what phases of flight they are very close to the edge of the envelope, and what happens if they **** up then.

Open book exams: No no no no.

I agree that in the exam you should not just be able to bring in any arbitrary book. But I would like the exams to be modified so that you *need* to look stuff up in a (foreign?) AIP, POH, LASORS or other reference publication. Just so that you can demonstrate that you are able to find certain information. Or better yet: Use their online equivalents. (Need to find a way to prevent cheating then.)

Oh, and while we're talking about the theory overhaul: The thing that bit me when I finally got my PPL (trained in the US, under CAA oversight, using the Jeremy Pratt books, flying in NL) was that the theory books didn't always adequately explain what the ICAO rule, the JAR-FCL rule and the country rule was. Particularly local oddities such as the quadrantal rule - it was never mentioned that that applied to the UK only. Likewise, for instance, the way countries use the A-G airspace classes, the types of FIS services available, booking in/out rules, customs issues and the GAR form, flight plan requirements & submission.

[what next]

Must admit I'm quite surprised that Spin training is not part of an FI rating as they are probably the most likely people of all to find themselves in that situation!

Why would that be? Many more students and low time PPL holders get lost (navigationally) than they enter spins inadvertently, so statistically, I should have gone lost quite a few times over the years. That didn't happen. It's an important part of my job to watch over the actions of my students. By doing this, I can prevent them from entering spins. And I am not aware of any (unintentional) spin-related accident during training flights with an instructor aboard.

[Cows getting bigger]

In no particular order:

First few hours - no instruments. Teach attitude flying and lookout.
More general handling. The Americans are good at this with turns around ground features. Also chandels/lazy 8s.
More variety - landaways.
More instrument flying (ie not just a 180).
A night stop - having to find your way around planning etc away from base.
Leaning!!!

[Contacttower]

One other thing; probably not feasible to do from a regulatory point of view but I certainly felt like the constant switching of instructors that I encountered during my PPL should not have been allowed.

[moreflaps]

What next, you seem to have some strange ideas about who has spin accidents. In fact, highly experienced pilots are no safer than new pilots and as for instructors ...

"In reviewing 44 fatal stall/spin accidents from 1991 - 2000 and classified as instructional, ASF found that a shocking 91%(40) of them occurred during dual instruction, with only 9% (4) solo training flights. Of the fatal instructional accidents, 64.4% of them occurred during manoeuvring, and 17.8% of them occurred during takeoff."

Cheers

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Only allow people to instruct (even if they have no Commercial License) after they have at least 1000 hours on relevant types. That way, the instructors might pass on some 'experience' rather than their lack of it....:ok:

The rest will follow....



Oh, and have a realistic currency figure.. A minimum of 12 hours (or whatever it is these days) over 2 years and a flight with an instructor is not enough.

[what next]

What next, you seem to have some strange ideas about who has spin accidents.

I have no idea at all. What I said was: "I am not aware of any..." by which I meant that of all training accidents that happend in my part of the world since I started flying (and that I heard or read about) zero were spin related. There were mid-air collisions, forced landings, hard landings, gear collapses and one accident caused by a physiological/medical condition. But not one spin.

Looking at your ASF statistics "Of the fatal instructional accidents, 64.4% of them occurred during manoeuvring" I wonder if "manoeuvring" might have anything to do with spin training itself? And if proper stall avoidance and awareness training could have prevented many of these accidents? Maybe?

[MIKECR]

Only allow people to instruct (even if they have no Commercial License) after they have at least 1000 hours on relevant types.

If that was the case then there would be a distinct lack of instructors as far as the eye could see!

[FlyingForFun]

All interesting stuff. However, can I play devils advocate for a bit.....

What if I were to suggest that the syllabus should contain the bare minimum neeed to fly safely. Basic handling, circuits (including crosswind), emergencies (lots of them), navigation without navaids as per the current syllabus. Let's throw in some kind of escape from IMC, too, although I'm not sure how useful that really is.

I'm sure there are lots of gasps in response to this. What about navaids? GPS? Different types of aircraft? FADEC, Rotax engines? International flight? And so on, and so on.....

Well, the simple fact is that most PPLs will want some of these "extras", but very few will want all of them. And there's a reasonable chance that they won't be wanted immediately after gaining the PPL - there may be a gap of a few years in between. So why not have some system where all of these really useful techniques can be taught after a pilot has gained his PPL, perhaps a considerable amount of time after, when he is actually ready to use the information? You want to fly a DA40? We'll teach you about FADEC and glass cockpits then. You want to fly to France? We'll teach you how to file a flight plan and check customs requirements. You want to fly a Tiger Moth out of a strip in Yorkshire? Well then FADEC, glass cockpits and going to France are probably not subjects that you have much interest in learning......

Just a thought.

(Of course thoughts don't come from nowhere. This describes exactly what I did. I learnt how to file a flight plan from an instructor when I did a cross-channel checkout some time after getting my PPL. I learnt about glass cockpits when I first flew an aircraft with one. I learnt about Rotax engines when I first flew an aircraft with one, and I've never yet flown an aircfraft with FADEC so I know very little about it - and I'm not bothered by that, because I know that if/when I ever fly such an aircraft I'll learn all I need to know, and it'll be a lot more meaningful than it would have been if I'd learnt it several years ago.)

FFF
------------------

(Edit to add that, contrary to some earlier posts, spin training, including demonstrating a spin recovery, is a mandatory part of instructor training - or at least it was in the UK when I did my instructor training, I don't know about other countries or about further back in time. It's also a mandatory part of renewal or revalidation of an instructor rating, every 3 years - at the very least, to brief the recovery, if the aircraft being used for the test isn't approved for spinning.)

[ChampChump]

Only allow people to instruct (even if they have no Commercial License) after they have at least 1000 hours on relevant types. That way, the instructors might pass on some 'experience' rather than their lack of it....




Quite agree. :ok:

What may be taught by some, but I fear not enough, are dead stick PFLs.

Perhaps we could also include a hefty chunk that stops people flying the radio.

[xrayalpha]

Interesting NATS safety presentation at BMAA Safety Day at Prestwick.

Of course, they could not produce one instance of a pilot who thought: let's go and infringe some airspace today. My pals will have lots of fun watching the aircraft being diverted all over the place!

So, all the infringements were accidental - which ultimately means based on ignorance (in particular, of position, obviously)

And ignorance comes from poor training!

So my thought, as an instructor, is that any infringements by my students or former students, are MY fault, not theirs.

And so, yes, we really, really need to change not just the syllabus (hey, I am off track by 5 miles, so I start calculating the one in 60 rule etc etc instead of immediately getting on the radio? ie Maybe Aviate, Communicate, Navigate - since if we have stopped navigating we have got off track!) but also the way we teach.

[IO540]

And ignorance comes from poor training!

Only if you assume everybody is perfect.

It would be true to say that all software bugs were written by programmers, but the same doesn't apply to humans :)

[The500man]

FlyingForFun has hit the nail on the head. The PPL is a basic license, if you want or need extra capabiltity you will know enough with a PPL to be able to go out and find it. There are many courses available like aero's, EFIS, tail wheel, farm strips etc. and alot of helpful/ knowledgeable pilots/ instructors about that can help with specific things like foreign nav.

Reading this thread it sounds like alot of people want everything they can think of stuck in the PPL.

I do however agree that practical navigation in the PPL should be addressed. There could be better integration in the course of how to obtain relevant NOTAMs, and computer based planning, and perhaps GPS. There could also be some compulsory nav in controlled airspace and filing flight plans.

In fact in the UK you could argue that the IMC be integrated into the PPL since it would be of benefit to all given our weather! This might resolve the problem with PPLs being unable to turn 180 degrees on instruments too. I'll leave it up to you guys to "discuss" whether PPL students should be taught to recover from a spin in IMC though! :)

Perhaps NAAs should be given some latitude on deciding what relevant "extras" the PPL should include in their specific regions?

[IO540]

There is truth there too, but if a PPL does not give you the ability to fly confidently abroad, then it has failed comprehensively.

Aerobatics is a very different thing which completely understandably requires extra training, and lots of it.

Same for flying "unusual" types like taildraggers.

I don't buy the idea that a PPL which teaches you to fly from Goodwood to Bembridge is a good product.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I don't buy the idea that a PPL which teaches you to fly from Goodwood to Bembridge is a good product.

Me neither, but frankly that's what my PPL did, and my CPL just taught me to do it better.

I did a longish cross country earlier in the week - nothing dramatic, but I was thinking en-route that a number of things that I was doing - landing at a non-radio strip, integrating DR, GPS and VOR into my navigation, making a straight in join at my return airfield because it saved a few minutes and the tower didn't mind: all of this is sensible piloting, none of it is in either syllabus. All learned, pretty much, by flying on my own or with more experienced pilots over a lot of hours, but all of which you could make a case should be taught somewhere in PPL, let-alone CPL.

G

[A and C]

Quote:-What I also would like to see somehow is a discussion on "newer" engine types. I mean newer than the traditional Lycosaurus O-320 and such. For instance the different starting procedures of carbs vs. injection. Discussion of FADEC engines (both diesel and avgas) and the vastly different emergency procedures associated with them. Plus some specifics on diesel engines and maybe Rotax. That's probably something for the theory syllabus though.

Not a bad Idea, but most PPL holders are still operating the Lycoming using techniques were issues for the Gypsy (IE mixture cut at idle to shut down, no plug clearing run before shutdown, no leaning below 6000ft Etc).

The fact is that most of the instructors who are just passing through on the way to the airlines are just passing on the stuff that was passed on to them from the 1950's and have zero interest in anything except getting more flying hours and any bit of skirt that walks through the door.

[IO540]

but frankly that's what my PPL did, and my CPL just taught me to do it better.

Sure, but that just shows what a half-useless ripoff the PPL is, has been for more decades than anybody can remember, continues to be, and this sorry state is not questioned by anybody, and why?

Perhaps the fact that the vast majority of the punters stop flying within a year or two. In fact, IME, most stop flying the moment they get their PPL.

And not just the PPL. I am slightly more than haflway through the Bogus (JAA) IR now. Never seen so much utter bollox. The relevance to aviation is somewhere below 10%. Luckily I have 2.5 months to grind my way through the Met and A/L question banks but what value does this deliver? Zilch. It is just a huge ego trip for a load of oddball types who have never flown a plane, and the PPL theory is no different. The PPL system hangs in there only because most PPLs give up right away and most of the rest never go anywhere, and the ATPL system hangs in there because everybody is too skint and nobody wants to rock the boat.