What's missing from the CPL

[Genghis the Engineer]

I wasn't quite sure where to post this, but I'll try here and see what happens.


I propose that there are serious gaps in the CPL. For that matter there is stuff that shouldn't be there to the same extent.

Let's see what happens to a new CPL holder. Bar a few oddballs (and the just plain unsuccessful) the vast majority will do one of two things:-

(1) Find themselves in the right hand seat of a 2-pilot transport aeroplane of some description, where much of their work is done by automation. Until it goes wrong!

(2) Become instructors.


In both roles, the massive emphasis on precision map and compass navigation that exists in the CPL skill test (and thus the course) does not really exist.

In both roles communication is a massive element.

In both roles the single skill most likely to get you out of the mire is the ability to handle emergencies.

In either role, once in a while, there's a risk of needing to deal with an aeroplane that is, put bluntly, the wrong way up.


Yet - emergencencies in the CPL are, well:-

- Engine failure
- Engine fire
- Stall.
- Gyro failure.

And that's about it. Maybe an EFATO if the examiner is feeling in that sort of mood.

What about radio failures? Short field landings? Partial power failure. And (hushed tones) the spin !


Now I'm not going to say that precision nav doesn't have a place in the CPL - it does. So do accurate well flown circuits.

But, could the CPL syllabus wind back the very high degree of accuracy required in nav (from "superb", to just "good"), and replace it with:-

- Spinning
- Comms failures
- Partial power failure?
- Precautionary field landing?
- Stuck gear?
- Blocked pitot?


I don't *think* that this is the same question as whether there should be spinning in the PPL syllabus. There is a lot of opinion nowadays that airline pilots should be comfortable with an aeroplane the wrong way up but, right now, it simply isn't in the syllabus for them and it arguably should be. At the same time, GASCo recently showed that around a third of fatal accidents there's an instructor on board, and maybe half of those are a stall/spin, so there's work which could be done at CPL level to help head that off.

Plus, speaking as somebody who has seen a fair number of emergencies, as well as somebody who tends to read the accident reports, I really don't believe that the classic fire/failure combination - whilst they need to be covered - get you close to the majority of emergencies. Indeed, they are quite unusual in that they are sudden, whilst many emergencies are progressive. So training should reflect that.


So, in a nutshell, I think that the CPL syllabus should wind back the nav - to a good standard, but not necessarily the ultra-accurate requirement current standards, and replace it with much more time on emergencies, and include spinning. Plus emphasise communications and decision making far more.

Thoughts anybody?

G

[Poeli]

I'm not a pilot ( at least not CPL), and it surprises me reading that those things you mentioned are not in the CPL syllabus.
Even in our glider courses we did spins and flying without instruments (simulate blocked pitots).

[blagger]

Genghus - all the emergencies should be coverd during the course, im sure they are in the syllabus. I got an electrical fail scenario on my test. Perhaps it depends on how rigorous the teaching is?

Spinning is mandatory on the FI course and test so that is covered there for instructors - I have a personal opinion that the current 3hr CRI course is inadequate so spinning should be covered during that as well. You could argue that the UA stuff should be covered type specific during type rating sim stuff I suppose.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghus - all the emergencies should be coverd during the course

But they aren't are they. There's a simple reason for this - they aren't covered in the skill test, and the schools are training to pass the test. Anything untested is given no more than lip service.

Which is not unique to flying schools, it's true of any educational system. Virtually all teachers train to the test.


I have a personal opinion that the current 3hr CRI course is inadequate so spinning should be covered during that as wel

It was covered in my CRI course, which ran to about 6 hours plus the skill test, for what it's worth. Although, I've always maintained currency in spinning anyhow - that has always been a personal choice.

G

[ChriSat]

I’ve yet to start my CPL, but I do have a PPL and from what I’ve seen of the syllabus and skills test requirements, I agree you with you Genghis. I think the main problem is the test is stuck in the 1970’s. The CAA seem to be obsessed with the DR Nav which really isn’t a practical way of navigating with the complex airspace we have here. I think they’ve got the balance right for the PPL skills test, but the CPL seems to be very skewed towards it. Are there any commercial operations left that actually use DR as a primary means of navigation? I doubt it. I’ve had my licence about 8 months now and can honestly say I still don’t feel comfortable (and probably never will) navigating on DR alone, especially when I’m flying to an unfamiliar area or airport around busy airspace.


I think the key is never relying on one source of information when navigating, and using all the aids you have at your disposal. MM GPS, VOR, DME, NDB, DR should all be allowed on the test, and if any one or more of these were to become “unserviceable” you should still be able to position fix.


It’s difficult to find the right balance as not everyone that does the CPL wants to go into a Multi crew environment, but what about different variants of the CPL, depending on what line of work you want to go into. So a rating endorsed CPL, (VFR)CPL, (MCC)CPL, and (FI)CPL. Making the syllabus geared towards the individuals intentions. It would also make instructors a more sought after commodity, and less hour building FI’s. A greater focus on situational awareness and raw flying skills sound good.

[One9iner]

Interesting point Genghis, and one that I do not disagree with.

In my CPL skills test however I was given the following scenarios and failures:

- Left engine RPM over-speed .. simple case of securing the engine with the use of the QRH
- Electrical fire
- EFATO
- De-ice failure on entry into IMC and icing conditions.
- Auto-pilot induced trim run away (simulated by the examiner by just pushing forward on the stick) and subsequent auto pilot failure.
- Radio failure (Examiner simply asked "what you do now if you had a comms failure and what decision would you make?)
- The usual stalls, GH, UA's, compass turns etc...
- The usual circuits - flapless, asy etc...
- And to finish off, an asymmetric landing on a fairly short runway (around 400m if I remember correctly)

In terms of the points raised regarding the use of navigation aids, in my test - as I'm sure like everyone else, on the nav leg between A and B, it's all DR, then on diversion from B to C you can then use a number of radio aids if you require. I used a nearby VOR and DME to give me a fix halfway on the diversion leg.

I agree a lot of what is covered in the syllabus and subsequent flight tests, aren't really a true reflection of the challenges you would face in a multi crew environment on a transport aircraft, but I'd like to think each pilot has to reach a certain level of competence on each size aircraft they're flying at each stage of training. But yes, the syllabus could do with updating, and that's not just the CPL syllabus. :eek:

[madlandrover]

One9iner: all good stuff that we'd throw at a candidate on a CPL course, with a few more extras along the way. I suspect much of the issue is indeed down to schools training for tests rather than to hold the qualification - something that I see at most levels, especially IR courses where the successful candidate can fly several set routes very well but doesn't have the skill set to plan and fly a route from another airfield, perhaps negotiating the join to CAS rather than having ATC cover the whole time. Personally, I/we try to do a good course, with the test being confirmation rather than the target! Works especially well with FI courses.

It wouldn't however be appropriate for the CPL course to be tailored too specifically to someone's future ambitions. Once the CPL is issued it is/should be a qualification that allows progression onto a range of options, all of which come with their own specific training courses. Eg the FI course is there to train instructors, not the CPL course. Precision nav comes in pretty handy for any FI ;).

[Genghis the Engineer]

Interesting One9iner.

May I ask where and when you did your skill test? You're describing about double the emergencies content of mine.

Certainly my experience was of being taught to pass the test (with a substantial amount of school "examiner spotting") - to the extent that as a 1000+ hour pilot when I did my CPL I really did feel that all that I genuinely got out of it was a massive improvement in my precision nav / flying.

G

[pudoc]

To be honest, any pilot SHOULD teach certain things to his/herself. That's what makes a good pilot, always coming back to yourself and thinking where you could improve. I do this even if I haven't flown so I feel I'm prepared for a lot of things. A couple of these things, comms and precautionary landing, are things any decent PPL wanting to get a CPL will be practicing on a regular basis, amongst other things like PFL, stalls etc.

But some pilots are just lazy and don't care and this is where I feel structured hour building should still be a form of training rather than exercising license privileges. Hour building should be a time where you perfect precautionary landings, xwind landings, stalls etc and therefore the CPL training can be used to focus on purely the CPL syllabus rather than re-learning what you should know as a PPL.

I agree with some of the things you suggested that should be brought in, such as spinning and learning how to keep weight off a wheel if you don't think it's locked down. But things like comms failure and precautionary field is what any good pilot should practice himself or run it through his head where practice is impractical (comms failure). But obviously that is too much to ask because some people just don't care.

Perhaps a pre-CPL training skills test should be done at the end of hour building. Then you'll be able to filter out the idiot pilots and keep the ones who want to be good. But that won't happen, schools and CAA will lose out on cash. So if half of hour building could be done by guidance of an instructor but still P1 then a lot of pilots will be more curent and fresh with things they did in the PPL so it doesn't need to be brought back into the CPL.

What is more shocking is that PPLs are most flight schools aren't given a POH for their aircraft. Image Mr. 45hr PPL, they would have no clue what to do if oil pressure hit zero and the temperature went sky high. There's no emphasis on knowing what to do when on rare conditions in the PPL. Every pilot should own a copy of their a/c POH and know it. But that doesn't seem to be the attitude. Many engine fires on start over winter at my school due to over-priming, most qualified PPLs jumped out straight away, should they have read the POH they'd have known to keep trying to start the engine for a few minutes.

In summary, I agree overall. Better training is necessary, but it shouldn't be necessary for most things. Only for spins, gear problems etc. A lot of things though should be taken on the pilots back to practice what he's been taught or should know.

[mad_jock]

For a CPL holder then going onto commercial flights they will then have to undergo compnay training and standisation and also whats called an operators procedure check which is along the lines of what G has mentioned.

The problem with adding more things is that the cost becomes ever increasing.

Most comercials these days head straight onto twin engined work.

Personally i have only ever been tested on PFL's twice. My intial PPL was in FL and wasn't tested in the PPL test. FI flight test and then the renewal were the only ones because I did the CPL in a twin.

The CPL is a basic license to learn. In no way is it the end of the process, the company then takes it further with what ever hardware you are flying.

[One9iner]

Genghis. When? Literally a year ago today. Where? A well known FTO.

I was lucky, and had a very good instructor, one of the best in my opinion; who covered the syllabus and more. The instructor was a tough person to fly with from a trainee's point of view, as he expected very high standards. When it came to the CPL skills test, I was comfortable with all the scenarios and questions fired my way by the examiner (apart from a slight moment when I had to secure the left engine, and started fumbling through my QRH and couldn't find the relevant page. After a deep breath I found the right page and the rest of the flight was fine.

There will always be some instructors who train people to pass exams, and others who take more time to run through other situations which you probably won't face in a flight test, but the gains are obvious..

[redsnail]

What about problem solving in a structured way?
There are many nmemonics for it. GRADE. DORDAR. Plane Path People.
It can be tested in a LOFT style section in the test.
Perhaps the easiest way to test it is a diversion. This is a skill that will be very useful in all areas of flying.

[FlyingStone]

I agree with most that has been said here, I have couple of suggesstions though:

1. CPL course shouldn't be introduction to flying Part 25 aircraft. If you are tested on an Arrow, fly as Arrow should be flown. And if you're doing a CPL skill test in a multi-engine aircraft, fly it like light multi-engine aircraft are flown. What you get currently is guys who use checklists for everything, including crimb, cruise, descent and landing checklist in traffic pattern. And I'm talking do and read or read and do checklists... I really wonder how can one manage flying a normal two-engine circuit with Seneca, doing all the written checklists and still maintain a good lookout - I can't.

2. Not really a CPL debate, but I think it should be addressed as well: IFR briefings. Sure, most people go from IR/ME on a DA42 straight to jets - but still, you are issued a single-pilot IR/ME, not a multi-pilot one - same accounts for IR/SE. I really don't se a point in briefing the entire approach chart, so the briefing consists of 50 different numbers, which nobody is going to remember, let alone a pilot flying single-pilot IFR in IMC without autopilot. I fail to see why you have to brief which holding entry you will use after a missed approach, if it's 30 miles past MAPt, which will take forever in most aicraft and there will be plenty of time to think about. Oh yes, and training in actual IMC is too dangerous - so let's issue pilots an IR allowing to fly them in clouds without demonstrating the effects than can and will happen in actual IMC (illusions, etc.).

3. A CPL pilot should be comfortable flying the aircraft to the edge of its limitations. How much CPL students have flown the aircraft to their maximum range or landed above maximum demonstrated crosswind? God forbid someday one of them will be offered a job and they'll have to perform to the limits of the aircraft, for example land on a short runway that POH says the aircraft barely gets in and out. Or land in a 20 kts crosswind, or perhaps ferry the aircraft without fuel stop so they will land with final reserve and perhaps alternate, if required?

And the rant for last...

A training course for Commercial Pilot's Licence shall teach student what being Commercial pilot means. It surely doesn't mean you work for free or even pay to work.

[One9iner]

REDSNAIL makes an interesting suggestion; single pilot LOFT exercises were run at the FTO where I trained during the IR phase of training mainly in the sim, but not during the CPL phase. The sim was never frozen, and failures / dire situations / below minima weather etc.. were simulated regularly.

There was also the 'final' LOFT sim session in our lesson plan; where the instructor was given free reign to push the trainee as far as they deemed beneficial, and the trainee knew going into the session that anything and everything could be thrown at them... I found it quite fun to be honest and very useful reviewing how I reacted to a whole host of problems, problems that would probably never happen, especially at the same time..

There was also an air of competitiveness between the instructor and trainee. i.e. 'Lets see if he/she can deal with this!!" "Ha, the instructor didn't think I would have coped with that!"

During MCC training obviously lots of LOFT exercises are run, but back to REDSNAIL's point, LOFT type exercises aren't really run through during single pilot CPL training and tests... It's more just "right the weather is below minima over there, what are you going to do?"

[Mickey Kaye]

My main gripe is the sear unemployablity of way too many fATPL/IR holders.

Having been unable to secure\buy a RHS job they are and not unreasonably trying to forward a career by moving into GA.

Sadly the type of training they have received doesn't open many doors on the GA\ instructing front.

They all have minimum hours, as much sim time as PIC time, only ever flown a couple of aircraft types. Have never landed at an uncontrolled airport, never landed at a grass strip, never made a unsupervised or none training flight and unbelievably for saying they are applying for a job in the UK – Never flown in this country.

Fortunately they are a few exceptions but it really is a such a waste.

[aviofreek]

And how about "common sense" and "logic" besides already stated above?

[mad_jock]

There is two definate routes though Mickey.

One route is how you describe the other is a bit more experenced in light aircraft and costs half the price.

I had 15 hours sim time when I got spat out because I did my IR on a FNPT I.

[fwjc]

One9iner - that final sim sounds like the Kobayashi Maru!

I have my 170a looming (apologies, mad jock!)

Fortunately I'm comfortable with unusual attitudes and spins, and am not used to having instruments as a rule (or flaps, or anything else fancy), so a failure of most stuff is no issue. All of this is based on experience or training outside of the PPL.

But, I am amazed at how much instrument time is included when there is no IFR capability conferred by the licence. And I agree with Genghis about the emergencies scenarios, I haven't done a whole lot on those. Although I plan to spend a couple of free hours tomorrow after work sitting in the aeroplane doing touch drills.

[KAG]

Genghis the Engineer:

Basic CPL for instructors,
MPL for airline pilots?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis the Engineer:

Basic CPL for instructors,
MPL for airline pilots?

I might agree if those were the only two things that people go and do, and nobody wants to do both.

My point however was about using those two baselines to restructure the CPL into something more appropriate to both (as I said, downgrade the nav requirement from "excellent" to "good" and expand the comms and emergencies components; expansion of navaid use is also a valid debating point).

G

[pilotchute]

Different countries, different problems.

In OZ you normally do your CPL in a S/E aircraft then your IR in a multi. You can do your CPL flight test in a multi but it doesn’t make any difference to you licence here. It just costs a lot more. If you want to be able to use nav aids on your CPL test you must be endorsed to use them by either having a night VFR or a SE-IR. Needless to say I was still only allowed to tune up the VOR as I was VFR on top on one of my legs during my CPL flight test. I did a short field landing and take-off from a very short dirt strip as well.PFL was covered as was UA’s. I also went into an airfield that had active parallel runways with 4 or 5 a/c in each circuit.

The problem here is none of your training is done in an aircraft that a GA operator here actually uses. Most entry level jobs require 10 to 50 hours on a Cessna 206, 207, 210 (anything with 300hp) etc. Do you think any of the schools around the major cities have one of these for hire? No way. Instead you have to go to an operator who isn’t a flying school and pay through the nose for private hire. I would have rather spent an extra $150 dollars and hour and done navs in a C206 rather than a C182. At least I could have applied for jobs fresh out of CPLcourse.

In regards to what is taught I was lucky in the sense that my instructors went out of the way to take me to dirt/grass strips and teach me max cross wind landings on those very skinny strips. I often hear new guys where I work say they have never landed on a dirt/grass strip until they got here. Some even say they don’t know how to use a gps except for the “direct to” function. “Oh no” they say, our Chief Instructor didn’t let us use a gps during our training he insisted it all be map and DR. So your IFR test didn’t require it? “No, it was just VOR to VOR and then to a NDB with an ILS at the end”. Who needs the nearest airport or VOR function anyway?

The reason I find all this funny is because 95% of entry level jobs (besides instructing) in OZ will have you flying in remote areas onto very basic strips dodging CB’s in the middle of monsoon season. If you can’t use a gps you will get very lost. If this is what you progress to why don’t we teach it? Just like the UK we seem to have a fixation on with DR navigation and incipient spin recovery. I’m sorry but an incipient spin isn’t a real spin. Until you have been in a full spin you don’t get the appreciation for it. I did an aero’s endorsement and found this one out for myself.

I would hate to think what would happen if like the UK we started to go straight to the RHS of jets here in OZ. We can’t even train people well enough to fly single engine Cessna for money.

[NQWhy]

I've got a great idea...why not have a Basic CPL that allows you to build experience and earn from it and then when (if?) you want to go on to more steely eyed planes you upgrade to a CPL...hmmm sounds familiar...

[rmcb]

I would agree to some extent with the comments - I encountered spin training right at the end of my CPL training as a few jollies and found it enlighteneing, rewarding and it enhanced the theory that until then was just 'this is how an aerofoil works'.

However, I can also see it from the regulatory authorities' viewpoint; studies in the US in the late '70s discovered more deaths (not just accidents) of low hour pilots were attributed to an over confidence in the 'upset' flight envelope. Thus the emphasis on just avoiding the scenario came into play.

Training for unusual/unnecessary(!) attitudes is a good compromise, because it is these that usually lead to spins, especially at base to final turn with a windshear risk. These were the primary findings of these studies.

[mad_jock]

especially at base to final turn with a windshear risk

especially as there ain't enough air under you to be able to recover how ever much training you have had.

[RVR800]

The CPL as a standalone qualification entitles the upgrading PPL holder some extra privileges. Those (limited) extra privileges should be form some part of the CPL syllabus. Of course the tolerances and standards exhibited are expected to be higher that that of lower licences. The problem is that the flight test is designed to form part of a scenario in which the graduate CPL holder would be unlikely to face without futher ratings being issued. (public transport) All to often this licence is simply a hoop along with the instument rating course that people do in order to get the fATPL. They do not in fact intend to fly single crew, or operate 6 pack display aircraft and they do not aspire to utilize the old technology that the GA fleets used for such training supply. That is why the airlines teach horses for courses in MPL. Good old fashioned stick and rudder skills have been dumbed down too much IMHO recently - let's replace stall-spin recovery with upset manoevres (oh sh1t) just knocked my coffee off my meal tray...... :rolleyes:

[G-HALE]

The system works. Leave it as it is. It is expencive enough already.
Like the PPL, the CPL is just another licence to learn!
In good time, experience prevails any training.

[zondaracer]

We could create a training system as selective a comprehensive as a military training, however the costs would skyrocket and since flight schools are in the business of making money, being super selective only works for the likes or Oxford and sponsored schemes. Just my 2 cents