This is not about better stick and rudder skills.

[AirRabbit]

Actually, Mr. safetypee you ask a VERY important and very “ON-TARGET” questions:

“...for those who ‘have it,’ what is ‘it’?.. Is ‘it’ having the knowledge and skills required in modern aviation; if so, then what are these and how might they be taught?”
If the industry does not understand the problem, the contributors, or the interactions, then how can “new kinds of pilot training” help; what would we be training for? Similarly if those who have the knowledge and skills cannot communicate what they are, or how they might be taught, then again industry will struggle to improve the situation...

My compliments, sir. You’ve nailed the obvious questions – obvious perhaps only to those who care about their profession, but obvious nonetheless – and in respect of your question, let me offer the following ...

The “it” described absolutely is (are?) the knowledge and skills required to function adequately and safely in modern aviation ... but the “on target” portion of your question/statement is ... “what is this knowledge and what are these skills and how might they be taught?” At the risk of sounding like I’m setting myself up as THE person who has the definitive answer ... and while that is certainly not my intent ... I think I can describe an appropriate answer. Let me address the “skills” and I’ll get to the “knowledge” portion in a moment...

The individual “skills” are the sets of eye-hand coordination actions that achieve the various airplane flight paths that are selected based on the existing airplane position, orientation, direction, configuration, and airspeed at any given moment, with respect to the desired airplane position, orientation, direction, configuration, and airspeed at the next moment. This is an iterative process, conducted over and over again. While I use the term “flight path,” the concept certainly goes beyond the physical “path” through 3-dimensional space, and includes these other elements. Of course the clear understanding of what is desired for this “flight path” (including ALL of the factors indicated) is necessary to achieve the satisfactory accomplishment of any identified flight task ... such as takeoff, climb-out, descent, instrument approach, landing , and, of course, you know the full compliment of such a list. The educational process to determine what kind of “training” may be needed is to first accomplish an analysis of what specific “tasks” are involved in the accomplishment of that particular job. So ... what are the tasks necessary to perform the job of pilot? You know those answers as well ... but it makes sense to write down a description of those tasks ... followed immediately by determining how to best “train” a person to be able to accomplish each of those tasks. Most often, that effort is taken “bit by bit” – identifying stepping-stones, or building-blocks of lesser or more generic skills and skill-sets addressing the accomplishment of a similarly structured stepping-stone approach to task identification, where each such stepping-stone level is combined to build a more sophisticated set of skills, to be able to accomplish a more completely identified task – all aimed toward eventually achieving a broad skill set applied in such a manner that flying the airplane is achieved in accordance with the design specifications of the airplane, the regulatory requirements, the goals of the company, the goals of the passengers (or those who contracted the shipment of cargo) – and most importantly ... in accordance with all safety designs and desires. I should take a moment and recommend that you acquire a copy of ICAO Document 9625 and read, carefully, the task analysis aspects of that publication.

I said I’d get back to the knowledge issues... There are very few (if any) educational professionals who would not agree with the premise that acceptance of how and why a particular physical movement of controls is the best choice of a pilot is based on an academically and intellectually understood concept of the issues involved. Knowing what happens to an airplane – or a portion of an airplane – at certain points in the profile of an airplane flight – or certain points in the accomplishment of a flight task – usually goes a very long way in understanding the “what” of the task, which invariably assists in the “acceptance” of that “what” and makes the “why” more easily seen and accepted. Understanding of what happens to ... say the effectiveness of an aileron control, as the airflow over the wing and subsequently over the aileron, is decreased is, or certainly should be, of interest to a pilot. He/she needs to know that at slower airspeeds, an aileron must be displaced further to achieve essentially the same airplane response. He/she needs to know that even though the lift characteristics of that wing may be enhanced by extending flaps, he/she needs to know that the enhancement will only occur if the airflow over that wing remains constant – and that to achieve that, he/she may have to do something else to achieve what is desired. These are understandings that can (and I believe should be) accomplished in an academic environment ... and then reinforced in a flight, or today, more than likely, in a simulated flight, situation.

Along with that identification of the stepping-stones or building-blocks, the kind of equipment that would be best utilized is also identified. This used to be some sort of trainer, historically built to look like an airplane cockpit ... but the end point equipment was always the airplane itself. Now, however, we have rather sophisticated simulation equipment – equipment that runs the gamut of capability, functionality, and ... of course ... cost. In some cases of the “higher-end” simulation, used in the training of relatively experienced persons – the concept of using the airplane to conclude the training or conduct the check is no longer the “given” ... in fact, more and more, we find complete training and evaluation programs conducted exclusively in a flight simulator – and the first time the pilot actually “sees” the real airplane ... he or she will have 200 passengers sitting in the cabin – awaiting their professional flight crew to take them to their chosen destination. This cannot occur by some slap-stick guess or by some throw-it-together-to-see-how-it-works process. To complicate the issue, we have seen pilots with little experience moving into positions of significant responsibility. We see pilots with questionable backgrounds through training, but having passed their last check, get assignments with similar significant responsibilities.

Once these aspects have been considered, developed, analyzed, and applied ... it then becomes a matter of how much training is necessary/appropriate. The answer to that question is, at the same time, both easy to answer and difficult to answer. Certainly the easy answer is to require the amount of training necessary to become proficient and competent on the specific task. In addition, the training that is completed would have to ensure that the subject pilot would be able to pull out of his/her “bag of tricks” and acceptable performance on any task asked of him/her during the final training session and for the proficiency evaluation. The difficult part of that answer gets wrapped into the issue of whether that task will be learned to an acceptable level – a proficient level – in one, two, four, twelve, or ?? attempts on that particular task? The answer here, most usually, is dependent on the individual pilot. Simply, some require less ... some require more.

What I can say is that the substantially best way to train a task is to do it over, and over, and over ... and continue that process until the instructor is convinced that the student is performing it successfully based on a legitimate analysis of the student’s performance. I seriously believe that the very best way to instruct is to find a way to describe to the student how to accomplish the task by using that student’s own preferences for measurement or gauging. As many of you know, some instructors teach exactly the way they, themselves, were taught. That is sometimes an “OK” thing ... but more often, it is not the very best way to teach an individual student.

I have not one, but two, “asides:”
1. A simple one to discuss – and not to suggest anyone going off on their own tangent without proper consideration and discussion with appropriate training and management personnel ... I think it entirely appropriate to teach all one can about how to control an airplane – and that would include non-traditional uses of traditional flight controls, power, flaps, speed brakes, etc. (Recall the United landing at Sioux City, Iowa – some call this “crew resource management” – that’s certainly OK, but I prefer to think of it as “alternative airplane control”). A simple example might include an experience with a nose up pitch attitude that is difficult to control, while the airplane seems to be reluctant to respond to direct forward or downward elevator control. An instructor might suggest rolling the airplane to move the upward lift vector off to the side, into a turning vector ... perhaps use of the autopilot will by-pass the non-autopilot control application ... perhaps partial extension of wing-mounted speed-brakes ... perhaps consider the reduction of power if the engines are located under-wing.

2. A more complex instructional technique is one where I seriously believe that the very best way to instruct is to find a way to describe to the student how to accomplish the task by using that student’s own preferences for measurement or gauging. As many of you know, some instructors teach exactly the way they, themselves, were taught. That is sometimes an “OK” thing ... but more often, it is not the very best way to teach an individual student. For example, if you wanted to teach a student how to acquire a “level flight attitude” achieved at the termination of a landing flare prior to touching down on the runway ... how would you describe what you wanted the student to do? Perhaps you would say, “at the conclusion of the landing flare the airplane should be placed in the level flight attitude,” and then explain that this is the best attitude from which a landing touchdown should be made. Would you consider telling that student, “at the conclusion of the landing flare, the airplane should be between 3 and 5 feet above the runway surface; do not allow the airplane to climb; do not allow the airplane to descend; do not allow the airplane to accelerate: do not allow the airplane to decelerate. Once at this point do not let the nose of the airplane increase or decrease from that position.’’ It may be my simplistic way of thinking, but I believe the first choice would result in the student asking what I would recommend for determining “level flight” attitude – and my goal is to avoid answering the “how” question – my goal is to have the student determine “how” they are going meet my demands. The second choice would provide substantial instruction to the student, including specific values to achieve. Of course the issue of power reduction will have to be included in the discussion ... and my favorite way around that issue is to tell the student that the latest point at which power reduction may be initiated is upon reaching the end of the flare (the earliest would be runway threshold crossing) ... and once power reduction is started, any adding of power MUST result in a rejected landing and a go-around – and the latest time that the power MUST be in “flight idle” would be at main gear touch-down.. My only reason for going into this level of detail is (hopefully) to demonstrate that in neither case have I told the student how to land the airplane. If he does OK with the first method ... (presuming I didn’t get or didn’t respond to any “how” questions) I’d leave it alone for awhile to see if the landings get better or worse. If they get better – I’d leave good enough alone. If it gets worse, I’d move on to the 2nd method and go from there. If he/she doesn’t do OK with the first method, or if I have described only the second method, that student will, necessarily get the airplane into a level flight attitude (as that is the definitional result of zero climb, zero descent, zero acceleration, and zero deceleration). As the airplane begins to decelerate (and it will, as we’ve changed attitude without adding power – and at the end of the flare we’ve begun reducing the power) the only thing the student can do to prevent further deceleration (since he/she cannot add power unless choosing to reject the landing and Go Around) is to release back pressure on the elevator control. However, we’ve already said that we don’t want to see the nose moving above or below the position achieved at the end of the flare, so there will only be a limited amount of elevator back-pressure that can be released. We’ve already stopped the student from continuing to pull back on the controls that might increase the nose position – we’ve discussed not moving the nose above or below the position achieved at the end of the flare – which would prevent the airplane from climbing and prevent the airplane’s tail from contacting the runway. If indeed the flare attitude was completed at 3 to 5 feet above the runway – the amount of time the student will be wrestling with him/her-self about releasing elevator back-pressure should be exquisitely short. If the initial flare is “completed” at a height of 20-30 feet above the runway ... I’d ask the pilot to go around and try that “height evaluation” again – and I’d continue to do that until the maximum height above the runway at the end of the flare is 10 feet or less.

OK ... “asides” over.
We were talking doing the task over and over and over and .... until that student is performing the task successfully ... based on a legitimate analysis of the student’s performance. Is it done now? NO. There has to be a revisiting of everything the student learns later in the syllabus – to facilitate the building block process. Some instructors are surprised to learn that a student will take something learned in performing one task, and apply that understanding, control “tweak,” sequencing, timing, speed of application ... whatever ... directly to another task that will make his/her accomplishment of that task easier, better, smoother, something. Good. Instructors should let that happen – fully grasping what that student is doing and why he or she is doing it. I do not advocate the student’s learning to do something in a way or in a sequence that is not recognized by the instructor. What the student is doing certainly “can” be due to an undiscovered process or technique that the instructor can then capitalize upon ... but usually that is not the case. If the student suddenly begins to appear to do something a lot better than before, and you cannot determine what or why – the chances are that student has talked with some of his/her buddies and have developed a temporary cheat-sheet methodology to “get through the check.” That is not acceptable in my book. We are not, or we should not be, teaching how to pass the test. We should be teaching how to fly the airplane. Cheat-sheet approaches usually wind up failing ... and doing so, miserably, at the most inopportune times! I believe instructors should, at all times, know exactly what his/her students are doing and why they are doing it the way they are doing it. If there are exceptions to this ... I haven’t yet come across one that I consider to be legitimate.

Finally, once all the tasks have been discussed academically and are understood intellectually ... once all the tasks have been tried, modified, tried again, and are regularly being accomplished, and accomplished satisfactorily, under the full and direct understanding of the person doing the task – now is the time that individual tasks may be incorporated into more traditional line operations. Some instructors believe that “situational scenarios” are the only way airline pilot training should be accomplished. I don’t believe that. While I think that these “situational scenarios” have significant benefit, I seriously believe that such exposures should be withheld until the student has demonstrated a rather good understanding and an relative ease in accomplishing the flight tasks presented. Intermixing these common or irregular tasks into a normal “line” sequence, does have value as regarding the other things that necessarily must be included in the periphery of any pilot’s daily operational thought-physical response event sequencing. Additionally, Crew Resource Management (CRM) has been talked about for over 30 years. And CRM has become a normally expected inclusion in the airline pilot training exposures. Make no mistake ... that is a good thing. However, as important as CRM can become, spending an inordinate amount of time briefing what you’re going to do to be sure the other pilot is fully aware of what you’re planning is, or at least could be, in my not-so-humble-opinion, a gargantuan misappropriation of time. If the two pilots in virtually any airplane operation are thoroughly trained and operate in accordance with the expected duties, tasks, and expectations ... a complete sequence of line operations can be conducted quite adequately – on time – and quite safely ... without either pilot uttering the first syllable to the other pilot. No, I don’t recommend this practice! No I wouldn’t expect such a thing to be seen ... even irregularly. The point is that well trained crews know what the other pilot is doing and knows what they, themselves are doing – and the critical issue is that each such pilot SHOULD recognize when he or the other pilot is NOT doing what is expected – what is right – what has been trained ... and any such “light bulb” recognition should be addressed – quickly – directly – and if necessary, forcefully.

So ... does that answer your question?