If you could redesign the flight training sylabus........

[Capt. Manuvar]

There have been a lot of post on various forum that seem to indicate a general feeling that the new pilots are coming out with lower and lower standards. The current training system doesn't seem to produce candidates who are suitable or desirable to the airline industry.
I've come to this forum because i think you chaps who work with the system. What I'm looking for is something along the following lines:
- What do you think should be added/dropped to/from the current system?
- how many hours do you think should be done at each stage?
If you think the current system "ain't broke", I would also like to here you reasons
Capt. manuvar

[FlyingForFun]

Capt. M,

You said: "The current training system doesn't seem to produce candidates who are suitable or desirable to the airline industry." Do you mean to imply that we should restrict the discussion purely to students who are going to go on to get an fATPL? Because my answer for those students might be very different to my answer as regards a prospective private pilot.

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

[Capt. Manuvar]

FFF
The dicussion isn't retricted to any group. I would like to here what people think about both private and professional training.
______________________________
I'm only a PPL so I might be abit "niave" but this is what flight training should look like. I think training should be harder and be offered to less candidates. Majority of people who get licenses and ratings don't actually get to use them, so i don't think there will be a "shortage" of pilots and that the number of 'active' pilots will be reduced.
PPL- 45hrs training , but should be harder. It should included 5 hrs complex trainsition and 3-5 hrs night training. I will reintroduce the 5hr IFR minimum. NAV should be done to a CPL standard and teach students how to combine different techniques instead of
"VERY" STRUCTURED HOUR BUILDING- I would restict it to around 50 hrs (40 hrs XC). It should be more structured than the current system, e.g 1 long day VFR XC, 1 long night VFR XC, a minimum number of flights to controlled airports and in certain types of CAS, must etc.
MULTI ENGINE RATING- i don't know much about this rating, but i'll propose 10 hrs if done as a stand alone and 6 hrs if combined with an IR
INSTRUMENT RATING- 40hrs. I don't know much about this (I 've only got as far as the FAA Instrument written)
CPL - 50-100 hrs. I think that the current system is more like an over-rated PPL. This is the aspect iof training that need the most work. I know i'll get shot down for this, but shouldn't an IR be a prerequisite for a CPL? Very few CPL jobs are VFR only. I think it should be about integrating VFR & IFR procedures, hence the 40 hr IR. It should integrate MCC and JOC, which can be done in fixed based sims.
Every thing i've said here may be complete rubbish, due to my relative inexperience. That why i've posted here to here what you professional think. I don't think i'll make it though the system i've proposed but thats another story altogether:}
Capt manuvar

[skydriller]

I only feel qualified to talk about the PPL part of the training as it is all I have done. Hope you dont mind the point of view of a fun PPLer.

The omissions in the PPL training to me are related to the type of place you do your training. In my case this was at a proffesional flying school at a large ATC Aerodrome.

I remember asking my instructor if we could go to a grass strip so I could see how it differed from hard surfaces and if we could actually do some short field take-offs/landings at a short airstips. I feel if I had not asked this then I would not have done it as part of my PPL training and the first time I would have done it would have been alone... I also asked if we could do more than just stalls, ie full spins - he actually said it was something he liked to do with students to give them the experience if they were OK with it.

I know the spin issue is a recurring one and been done to death, but I think my other point is valid because although we need to study performance tables etc for written exams and learn the short field technique, it isnt quite the same doing it from a 1800mx30m runway as seeing it in practice from a short grass strip....

And finally.... GPS is the best thing to happen to GA since , well, ever....why is it not taught in here. On a trip to the US, the instructor checking me out couldnt believe I didnt have one, and would be flying around using old fashioned mk 1 eyeball nav techniques. he insisted I borrow his back up hand held unit and spent his own time over a beer or two that evening teaching me how to use it. He converted me, and I now have a very nice Garmin 196.:ok:

Regards, SD.

[Dan Winterland]

My ideal syllabus would have 4 hours IF, the slow flight bit would see introduction of incipient spinning (note incipient , not full), a bit more nav, at least another hour of PFLs and the nav test would be separated from the skills test as a 2:30 long test is too much at that stage.

If done sensibly, it could be done in the 45 hours, or maybe even in 40.

And if those of you who have been private flying for over 20 years think these proposals sound familiar, you might be right!

[I Fly]

All the posts here want more and 'harder' training. I applaud that. There is a very simple solution to that. Come to my flying school and tell me what extra or 'harder' training you want and I'll give it to you. I'll do all that for the normal hourly rate. The syllabus only spells out the minimum the regulator thinks is required. There is no maximum limit. Perhaps I have the wrong kind of students? But. A lot of my students can't see the reason why they have to do this or that and why the accuracies are as they are.

[shortstripper]

Capt. Manuvar

Is this post for real? I guess it is and it's certainly an interesting one. But as to your suggestions ... I respectfully say to you that they are the biggest load of poppycock I've heard in ages!

Just exactly who should be "offered" this harder training? do you mean those who want it, and so some sort of two tiered PPL? or do you mean to simply keep out the great unwashed (ie no formal educational qualifications or financially challenged)? Both of these would be ludicrously hard to administer and grossly elitist.

I'm all for improving standards but to simply make things harder and more geared toward commercial at PPL level is simply way OTT. Ok Let's say the average student PPL gives up flying shortly after qualifying, or as you say gets ratings but never uses them. So what? Not everybody may have the same motivations that obviously drive you. Why shouldn't Jo Bloggs get his PPL just because he wanted to see if he could? so what if he does an IMC but never intends to fly IFR?

Other points you suggest ...

Nav to CPL standard for PPL ... do you seriously want to send a student pilot off on a 300 NM jaunt before he has qualified and done a few shorter trips to build confidence?

5 hrs complex training ... why? He/she may only want to fly simple aircraft.

3-5 hours night ... OK that one I'd accept as a good idea ;)

5 hours IFR training .... hmmm do you mean IFR or instrument training? IFR, ok but again really not needed at PPL if there is no desire by the candidate to go any further than daytime VFR. Instrument training ... dodgy to introduce instrument "training" at PPL level esp if only 5 hrs. A couple of hours of instrument "appreciation" is one thing, but to have a new PPL think he/she is OK to fly on instruments because he/she has had "training" is inviting disaster! :uhoh:

IR before CPL? You may think there are few CPL's that don't need IR to work ... you'd be wrong. Just a couple of examples would be ag pilots and display pilots. IR may be desirable but you'd be doing them no favours by making it a prerequisite to CPL.

I'm not trying to deliberately shoot you down in flames for your suggestions, but I do think you are rather assuming others are motivated to fly for the same reasons as you (ie.. to become airline pilots). They are not! I really don't see why the PPL should be made harder to obtain, all that would do is further reduce the number of people taking up flying. Perhaps that is what you want? :ugh: Quality of training and standards are a separate issue. Making something "harder" to obtain doesn't always improve these, in fact sometimes it can reduce them :hmm:

SS

PPL too so I'm not in a position to comment on CPL training.

[FlyingForFun]

Personally, I think shortstripper hit the nail on the head when he said:I do think you are rather assuming others are motivated to fly for the same reasons.... They are not!There are so many different reasons for wanting to fly, and for each of these reasons there should be a different syllabus. I can't see any way of enforcing this legally, so I would leave the legal requirements as they are, but if I were the CFI of a flying school I would offer lots of add-ons and variations. And I would talk to my prospective students about these add-ons before they started their training so they could get a realistic idea of how much time and money it would take to get them to where they want to be.

For some people, the challenge of either going solo or getting the PPL is everthing. Once they've reached that stage, they have achieved there aims, and we'll only see them very rarely after that.

Then you've got people who are interested in what I call fun flying - classic aircraft, aerobatics, etc. A large portion (maybe even all) of their PPL should be on a taildragger, with lots of emphasis on strip flying, ded reckoning and so on. (Who wants to spend hours learning to use a VOR when you're going to spend your flying career in aircraft without so much as a battery, let alone a VOR.)

I would guess that a large portion of PPL-holders are spam-canners - no desire to fly a "difficult" aircraft, nor to get to important business meetings by air, but they'd like to fly somewhere for lunch on a sunny Sunday afternoon. So let's give them the tools to be able to do this confidently and safely. And that means SD's suggestion of teaching them how to use nav-aids properly..... including GPS.

The business flyer, who actually wants to get somewhere with his aircraft, will need a night qualification with his PPL, as well as a thorough understanding of nav-aids, auto-pilot, and so on. He will be going on to do an IMC rating as soon as possible, so spending more time on instrument awareness during his PPL will benefit him. A complex checkout will also have a big benefit, as long as he will have a complex aircraft available to him later on.

As for the commercial student..... airline flying techniques are so different to anything that can be achieved in a light aircraft that I can't see any point in trying to tailor the course specifically towards that. We'll save that for his first type-rating, and instead, during the PPL, concentrate on the techniques needed for the CPL (but also give him enough other tools to be able to hour-build safely).

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

[DFC]

Nice try at trying to reduce the number of people competing with you for that airline job...you must have the money to pay for all this extra training so you simply...price them out of the market! :)

The training system I believe is just fine as it is. It has a balance between providing the training to meet the sport / recreational flyer while at the same time meting the requirements of those progressing to professional flying.

Standards vary greatly because the system is provided by humans and unfortunately, in many cases the persuit of profit can outshine the persuit of standards.

However, when talking about professional standards, you only have to hang round the clubroom at a UK outfit when the pilot who looks smart, operates safely and plans everything fully before executing as professional as possible a flight.....and you will see many pilots (instructors included) making jibes about that person. In short professional operation of something simple like a C150 in the UK is seen as unusual when the opposite should be true.

While a student recently planned a crosscountry, a passing PPL eroute to his twin remarked to his lady friend that "we don't need to do that stuff because we have expensive electonics to tell us where to go".

In short, the pilot who sets and keeps to weather minima, plans thoroughly even the shortest flight and isn't slow to turn back or divert, calculates a weight and balance always, calculates mass and balance always, claculates mass and performance always, uses some form of PLOG always, calculates the fuel requirement always and doen't simply fill the tanks, makes reports when things are not up to standard or when any incident occurs.....is seldom seen at a flying club in the UK.....but isn't that what every professional pilot does every time?

Perhaps it is simply attitudes that need to be changed.

Regards,

DFC

[Capt. Manuvar]

The problem with the current system is that new pilots are unable to do much with their licenses, especially PPLs. Most people learn to fly for more than one reason. On the PPL side of things new pilots can only comfortably fly simple aircraft, do simple manuevres and fly short cross country flights in relatively good visibility.
On the CPL side of things, would you agree that new pilots are capable of carrying out the priviledges of their licenses comfortably? WHy is there the 500/700 hr rule?
All I'm saying is that more can be done in the 45/200-250hrs of training. You only have to look at the military training system.
DFC
You've asked a very good question. I can barely afford to pay for the current system.
One the PPL side of things, the training industry is trying to ditch the elitist image by attracting a less affluent clientelle. Unfortunately most of these people can not afford to fly the number of hrs needed to maintain proficiency or enjoy the full benefits of a PPL. In order to be a comfortable PPL in the UK extra training is needed in addition to the PPL training. So in the end of the day there wouldn't be much of an effect on the number of active and proficient pilots, even though the number of people with PPLs on their mantlepieces will. The only benefactor of the current sytem are the schools. I'm just trying to shift the balance to the pilots, nothing wrong with that, is there?
The bottomline is flying is expensive and take that from one of the poorest men in the UK:ok:
Capt. M

[shortstripper]

You have a very blinkered view on things cap'n ...

With a PPL you are not "that" limited? for example, you can ...

Fly around the world!
Fly a Spitfire, Mustang or even a Hawker Hunter!
Fly aero's to unlimited standard.
Get an IR rating.

Hardly "simple aircraft, simple manouvers, short cross countries or even good viz"???

500-700 is purely a measure of experience not necassarily competance ... now the 700hr self improver route has gone there is no "rule"?

You can fly perfectly comfortably in the UK with no extra training ... it just depends what you want to do or fly?

As a farm worker with five kiddies ... believe me, you have no monopoly on be slightly impoverished. You simply have to learn how to get around the "system". Once you do, you'll find that you can fly far more cheaply than you or your mates would ever imagine:p

Open your eyes old chap and you'll see a whole lot of life is out there for the taking :ok:

SS

[Send Clowns]

On the PPL side of things new pilots can only comfortably fly simple aircraft, do simple manuevres and fly short cross country flights in relatively good visibilityWhile this is very true, Capt, that is the limitation of the course length. 45 hours is a little more than required by some, but about right or insufficient for many to learn the exercises already included. The military training system has a 65-hour SEP course, for pilots of certain aptitude and even they are under some pressure (I know, I have passed it).

You may have already heard the PPL described as a "licence to learn", and I would always encourage pilots to think that they never stop learning and developing their skills. All these other abilities you feel a pilot requires should gradually come as the pilot gently expands his* abilities, on his own or with an instructor. On the other hand I recently helped teach a PPL student who had bought his own aircraft and intended to use it to its full capability. We did far more ambitious exercises than are really required by the PPL course, and went much further afield. I taught him the best way to operate the aircraft, including flying higher than most PPLs when weather does not constrain the flight and use of autopilot to ease workload on long trips. This is always an option for the more ambitious student who can afford it. To include this in the PPL course and test is not required and would only make the licence even more expensive to acquire.

*(masculine pronoun used for convenience only!)

[Capt. Manuvar]

I don't intend for this to turn into a slanging match. all I've asked is for your views on what needs changing. I might be inexperienced but from talking to fellow pilots and my personal experiences I think that the current system has a lot of flaws.
The fact of the matter is there are very few, if any new PPLs who can fly spitfires/around the world/aerobatics/etc in the real world.
As Sendclowns has rightly pointed out, the PPL is a license to learn, but isn't it possible to make it a lot more than that. The current system is inadequate for pilots who for example wish to fly for business.
All I'm saying as a CUSTOMER (who is always right:O ) is that I would prefer a system that allows me to do a lot more.
Shortstripper,
I don't know if you're an aircraft owner, but i doubt you would let the average PPL anywhere near your aircraft if you were one.
Most new lorry drivers today will find themselves at the controls of a top of the line 44-tonner on their first job. the same applies to train/bus drivers. My car driving test was much harder than my PPL skills test, and that doesn't do much for my confidence as a pilot. Training programs in any industry or field are supposed to give you most if not all the skills required to do the job, that can't be acquired through experience.
It's no secret that the airline industry is not content with the quality of new CPLs. The ICAO has proposed the new co-pilot license. these are signs the the current system is flawed. What suprises me is that a new CPL can be allowed to do 6 TOs and landing in a multi-million £ Jet after 'only' 40hrs in the sim, yet they cannot be allowed to fly PA34s with passengers IFR.
I just refuse to believe that more training can't be included in the curent 45/200hrs or that the current system is adequate.
Capt. M

[Charlie Zulu]

Operating as a crew under IFR in a multi million pound B737 is probably a lot easier (relatively day to day) than operating a PA34 as a single pilot under IFR in the thick of a UK winter with icing, winds etc all conspiring against you, with maybe a very very very simple autopilot (may be u/s) bouncing around in the dark night sky fully encapsulated within thousands of feet of cumulous clouds and not a chance to get to VMC on top conditions. Quite often with the single pilot IFR work you're also flight planning, working out the fuel load, the weight and balance without anyone in operations to back you up.

Personally I believe, and our own beloved CAA believe, that operating under these conditions is very hard work and that is why they impose a 700 hour rule before one can fly single pilot IFR commercially.

When you say why do the 500/700 rule exist? Well that is the FAA system I believe you're thinking about... 500 hours for single pilot vmc work and 700 for IFR work... if I remember correctly. We (UK CAA) only have the 700 rule.

The airlines do take low hour CPL/IR pilots, but as there are a load of fully qualified jet type rated people around they'll take them first...

Oh and if the Business person obtaining a PPL would like to fly for business then they'd buy a really nice de-iced twin with lots of instrument and systems redundancy and also train for a full Instrument Rating (either FAA or JAA)... that way they'll have the *same* IR as any airline pilot does...

Best wishes,

Charlie Zulu.

[Send Clowns]

Captain I think you are mistaking the idea of a PPL. A PPL is for private flying. It also allows a pilot to fly on personal business, though the cost must be borne by the individual, at least on an equal basis with everyone on board. If you wish to fly beyond the privileges of a PPL, or beyond your capabilities at licence issue (and it is to your great credit that you recognise that the capabilities of a new PPL holder are more restricting than the statutary limitations of licence privileges) then you can pay for extra training. I know no schools that would refuse to provide some. On the other hand someone who simply wants to fly to the Isle of Wight every couple of weeks (as one of our students does) should not have to pay for extra training!

For business use you are looking at a CPL. There is a reason that 200 hours total time and an extra 25 hours flight training plus an awful lot of groundschool are required for the holding a CPL. That reason is exactly what you are talking about: you can do a whole lot more with it, and are expected to be able to cope much better with a broader range of situations.It's no secret that the airline industry is not content with the quality of new CPLs. The ICAO has proposed the new co-pilot license. these are signs the the current system is flawed. What suprises me is that a new CPL can be allowed to do 6 TOs and landing in a multi-million £ Jet after 'only' 40hrs in the sim, yet they cannot be allowed to fly PA34s with passengers IFR.It may be no secret to you, but it seems to be a secret to those of us that actually work in commercial flight training. The proposed co-pilot's licence would actually be of a lesser standard than the current CPL/IR, and would not allow all the privileges.

If you really knew enough about flying to go waving these random criticisms of the flight training system in a forum full of people in the business then you would realise how much harder single-pilot instrument flying is than multi-crew. Notice that many commercial operators have AOCs which in fact restrict them to pilots with more than 1000 hours for single-pilot ops.

[FlyingForFun]

CZ,

We do have a 500hr rule under JARs. The reference is JAR-OPS 1 (http://www.jaa.nl/section1/jars/443844.pdf), page 1-N-3 (page 129 of the linked document), rule 1.960:(a) An operator shall ensure that:

(1) A Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL) holder does not operate as a commander of an aeroplane certified in the Aeroplane Flight Manual for single pilot operations unless:

(i) When conducting passenger carrying operations under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) outside a radius of 50nm from an aerodrom of departure, the pilot has a minimum of 500 hours total flight time on aeroplanes or holds a valid Instrument RatingFFF
---------------

[DRJAD]

Certainly I would see the PPL as a licence to learn.

My contribution to the debate would be that the initial part of the course (however that be defined) should contain enough material and assessment to ensure that the eventual PPL graduate has the ability and has the basis of knowledge and deductive reasoning skills to be able to go on and learn more.

I quite agree that the amassing of experience post-PPL is in itself a learning process, but, in the absence of good skills learned during the PPL course, it becomes an empirical learning process. Consequently, it does not provide the maximum value to the pilot.

My feeling is that the current PPL syllabus, and its form of theoretical assessment (i.e. the MCQ ground examinations) insufficiently tests deductive reasoning.

[shortstripper]

Capt. Manuvar

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be offensive ... I have a tone that sometimes implies that I think? It's actually just a rather strange sense of humour :\

I missed the word "new" in your original post and took your it to mean that the PPL "persay" is very limited ... which it isn't.

The training and test for PPL is (I think) on the whole pretty adequate for what it is and yes a PPL is just like a new driving licence in that it's a licence to learn. There comes a point at which ANY training needs to be backed up by experience. If you made the PPL part too onerous, people would either give up or simply start to have problems consolidating all they have learned. As a non CPL I can't comment with authority, but I do sometimes wonder about this problem with fast track CPL training. Look at this in a real life senario ... for example, a mechanic used to learn his/her trade by doing an apprentiship over a long period of time. Now he/she can become a qualified mechanic much quicker by doing a short college course. No offence to new mechanics, but the "old" style types really knew and empathised with engines and other machinery ... not so the new style ones (in my experience anyway). This is just an example, but I hope you can see what I'm trying to say?

Actually I do have my own aeroplane, plus a share in a nice Falconar. A couple of the members are new PPL's and I have no problem with them flying the aircraft at all. It is the attitude of the person that counts. If you know your limitations and act/fly accordingly then a new PPL is absolutely fine. After all, many say your first solo is your technically your best flight. They could be right! You are fresh, well prepared, in good practice and very very aware of your limitations!

SS

[Charlie Zulu]

Hi FlyingForFun,

Apologies are in order for the thread. Sorry I didn't have a clue that JAR-OPS included a 500 hour rule.

Thanks for pointing that out to me and I'm sure I'll be learning about that in the ATPL distance learning course I've just enrolled on (awaiting module one in the post - very imminent).

Best wishes,

Charlie Zulu.

[Evo]

Actually I do have my own aeroplane, plus a share in a nice Falconar. A couple of the members are new PPL's and I have no problem with them flying the aircraft at all. It is the attitude of the person that counts.


That's a relief ;) (I'm one of the new PPLs sharing the aeroplane with shortstripper :O )

As a PPL with no intention of going commercial I think the current PPL is generally good. I'd like to see the exams beefed up a little bit (although I recognise that I'm in a minority with that one) - not into mini-ATPLs, but there's an awful lot that a plain-vanilla PPL doesn't know. I'd also like Ex. 19 to be taken a bit more seriously, but maybe that was just a failing of my PPL - after doing an IMC I don't think that that the instrument work I did during my PPL would have been enough to get me out of trouble.

For me, by far the most useful flying i've done post-PPL has been FFF's "fun flying" - basic aerobatics and tailwheel. They're not for everybody so they couldn't be moved into the PPL, but i'd like to see both encouraged a bit more afterwards. Both are very good for confidence, skill - and enjoyment! However, clubs with nice aerobatic aeroplanes or tailwaggers are fairly rare, and, more importantly, good instructors are even rarer. I gave up on my first tailwheel checkout because the instructor had just got back into a taildragger for the first time in 40 years (Boeings in between) and couldn't teach it. Second time out was a much better instructor and much more successful :)

[foxmoth]

I think there is no problem with the sylabus (though for the NPPL I think trying to do it all in the reduced time is totally unrealistic for most people), if the problem lies anywhere in the PPL teaching it is the standard of instructing, after all, most PPLs take more than the minimum time anyway so the 45 hour minimum is JUST that - I don't know what else you think should be in the training, IMHO I think it should be what we have now but to a higher standard. Beyond the PPL there is a LOT of scope for improvement, I would like to see schools offer a "PPL Brush up" course of about 5 hours or so and encourage people to take this course around 20 - 30 hours after finishing their licence. PPLs should also be encouraged more to seek help from an instructor outside the more formal courses - ie for other than just gaining another qualification but for specific areas THEY would like to improve in.

[DFC]

One thing that needs to be done is for better checking as students progress. Currently, the only check in many cases is the final skill test.

We had one instructor who we discovered was taking 1.5 times the average time to progress his students to PPL standard. (Note that is 1.5 times the average and not 1.5 times the minimum.)

That produced a sticky situation where we could see that students were being ripped off by this instructor (instructors paid by flight hour) but how does one say that individual students are being held back unless someone actually does a regular progress check on every student?

There is still cases in the UK where students are being tested by the same person who completed all their training - this it seems can be done for NPPL and I feel that the system is open to abuse which then reflects badly on the whole industry.

Perhaps heads of training should be required to conduct progress checks and the CAA should operate a centralised initial skill test booking unit and every student being recomended for test would contact them and be assigned an examminer from their local region but not from their own school.

Regards,

DFC