What's missing from the CPL
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