Open Question to 10540 - what's wrong with WW2 pilot training?!

[kevmusic]

I was just curious. I notice in some of your replies to posters that you appear to condemn the existing syllabus as outdated and that the navigation syllabus, in particular, should be re-thought, in order to embrace new technology.

I'm curious because I'm on a mission to learn to fly like the WW2 guys did! (Within my own limited means.) I want to finish my PPL on tailwheel, I want to get IMC and Night and do aerobatics, and I want to navigate by map, compass and CRP. Apart from the fact that I love engaging with history when I do these things, it didn't seem to do them any harm!

Kev.

[IO540]

Not sure, Kev, whether you are serious or whether this is a wind-up.

If you want to learn to fly like they did in WW2, I am sure you can. You go down to Transair and get yourself an "authentic" leather cap and "authentic" goggles (or "authentic" sunglasses), a £500 "authentic" leather jacket, a real WW2-RAF-issued watch (plenty of them for sale, not cheap though as they tend to be collectors items). Then turn up at a school that does taildragger training. I don't know of any from experience because I didn't do that but there are plenty in the USA that specialise in this field.

"it didn't seem to do them any harm"

Apart from the WW2 pilots being a bunch of eager to learn (mostly) teenagers (whereas today's average newcomer is in his 40s/50s), and WW2 pilots having had 1 or 2 orders of magnitude more currency than today's average PPL, and nobody expecting them all to necessarily come back from their unplanned qualifying cross country flight at 20,000ft over France on oxygen and with a few aeros thrown in, and there being no controlled airspace back then, and GA having been grounded through WW2 anyway, and no reports/prosecutions for flying at 200ft following a river, and the fact that a lot of them couldn't find their own airfield anyway, with most bombers being unable to find a foreign city never mind drop a bomb on it (until the pathfinder squadrons came along) etc, etc, I agree with you completely.

Times have moved on. Today, any punter with the IQ to pass the PPL exams, learn to fly, and the budget to do any flying afterwards, cringes at the antiquated methods being taught. Most won't tough the decrepit PPL scene with a bargepole. Only the most hardened anoraks and the most keen to fly remain in the system, and most of them drop out within a year if not immediately they have the PPL. Curiously, when somebody ends up overhead some big concrete place with two big parallel runways, with a lot of 747s waiting to depart, the CAA prosecutor won't have much of a problem with it...

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Times have moved on. Today, any punter with the IQ to pass the PPL exams, learn to fly, and the budget to do any flying afterwards, cringes at the antiquated methods being taught. Most won't tough the decrepit PPL scene with a bargepole. Only the most hardened anoraks and the most keen to fly remain in the system, and most of them drop out within a year if not immediately they have the PPL.

Flying small aeroplanes for pleasure is expensive and demanding. It therefore follows that only those who are enthusiasts, those who love flying, will stick with it. Anyone who perseveres through the PPL just to 'get that bit of paper' so they can tick some sort of lifestyle box, or so they can brag down the pub, won't stick with it.

It has nothing to do with 'decrepit PPL scene' (or wearing of anoraks, which is the preserve of spotters), and everything to do with having a burning desire to fly.

I applaud kevmusic's desire to fly tailwheel aeroplanes, aeros, and become competent at VFR nav - he will be an excellent stick & rudder pilot as a result, will really understand his aeroplane, and will get a fantasic amount of enjoyment from his flying - so much more than the '£200 cup of coffee' club hire guy who will almost certainly drop out.

None of this will prevent him (indeed it will be the best foundation) from using aids like GPS from day one, and flying high performance aeroplanes in instrument conditions later - if that's what he wants to do.

SSD

[IO540]

I don't particularly disagree with you, SSD.

It depends on your terms of reference: do you want to look at this from the individual's perspective, or from the perspective of wanting to secure GA's future in the UK/Europe and perhaps even advance it a bit.

My "effort" here is in the latter department.

Anybody can do the former. Let's face it, plenty of people rebuild old steam engines for example, but I don't think that maintenance of the traditionalist position will keep GA alive.

Most people that do a PPL are doing it as some sort of personal challenge, and they drop out when they are done. This happens in the UK, in the USA, everywhere, and nothing can be done about that. Perhaps 75% ?

It's the attrition rate in the remainder that will determine whether GA will prosper, or whether it will disappear up its own back orifice, with noncommercial airfields closing down because they can't make ends meet through landing fees and fuel sales.

The individual perspective is quite simple. Learn to fly, get yourself access to a plane, find yourself a nice freehold farm strip to keep it (that's probably by far the hardest bit), and you are sorted out for the rest of your life.... well until you fail your medical. You can safely ignore what happens in the rest of the country.

The traditionalist position would have been OK 30+ years ago, but society has changed. Expectations are a lot higher now, and not so many people want to play this game with leather caps and goggles, and any remotely educated newcomer just cringes at things like the slide rule. Sure you can get people to play along but their numbers won't be enough for GA to survive. I don't think most UK pilots realise just how desolate the GA scene is outside the UK...

[gcolyer]

IO540

Your response seemed a little harsh. A lot of those pilots in the war probably wanted to fly but didn't really fancy the idea of being blown out of the sky, so I would imagine their nerves were a little edgey.

As for not expecting to come back from the xcountry 20,000ft over France qualifier....don't forget what other nation was probably carrying out the same sort of training in the area plus the amount of German fighter patrols buzzing about. I would imagine a fair few got blown out the sky during training.

As for the Nav skills...compare technology and knowledge from today back to then, and then tell me you could a better job with the same training they had.

Don't get me wrong I am not having a pop at you, I just think you went a bit far with rippng it out of the WW2 pilots.

[shortstripper]

It might indeed be a wind up, but then you do set yourself up for it IO540 ;)

A lot of what you say makes sense, but you only ever seem to see it from your perspective. You obviously have the money and the inclination to want the best and most modern toys along with all the gadgets, and that's just fine. I expect you drive an equally advanced and flashy car and pour scourn on those who drive old bangers about. The point is that virtually everybody has a completely different way of looking at life. Some fly old stuff and practice old style nav because they want to, some because that's all they can afford, so what? To say that anything other than modern aircraft, the use of gps ect ect will bring about the demise of GA is utter ballderdash! I fly a slow old open cockpit taildragger, and I love it! I'd certainly love to fly somthing sleek and modern, but I can't afford it. Maybe one day I will, but in the meantime I'll just pull my old girl out on a still evening and flutter around for half an hour for the pure joy. True, I'm not putting much back, I pay few fee's so I guess I'll not keep GA alive for long. However, I'm still here and like many others I add my voice to lobbying. I haven't given up like many who could afford to keep going but haven't for one reason or another, so I consider myself an equal to you and any other PPL. I assume that expensive toys aside you love above all to fly? If you suddenly came on hard times would your thoughts change or would you drop it all rather than go "traditional"?

There is nothing wrong with your style of aviating, and there is nothing wrong with mine. Let's just get on with the business of enjoying the skys and forget this "my method of nav is better than yours" or "GRP,GPS,IR yadda yadda yadda, is the future whereas wood and fabric, CRP and VFR are not" rubbish ... and just fly!!!

What a brilliant week! Clear skies and happy flying to all, enjoy it while you can!!!

SS

[kevmusic]

Thanks for your reply, 10540, and the rest of you guys. The question was definitely no wind-up!

If you want to learn to fly like they did in WW2, I am sure you can. You go down to Transair and get yourself an "authentic" leather cap and "authentic" goggles (or "authentic" sunglasses), a £500 "authentic" leather jacket, a real WW2-RAF-issued watch (plenty of them for sale, not cheap though as they tend to be collectors items). Then turn up at a school that does taildragger training. I don't know of any from experience because I didn't do that but there are plenty in the USA that specialise in this field.

"it didn't seem to do them any harm"

Apart from the WW2 pilots being a bunch of eager to learn (mostly) teenagers (whereas today's average newcomer is in his 40s/50s), and WW2 pilots having had 1 or 2 orders of magnitude more currency than today's average PPL, and nobody expecting them all to necessarily come back from their unplanned qualifying cross country flight at 20,000ft over France on oxygen and with a few aeros thrown in, and there being no controlled airspace back then, and GA having been grounded through WW2 anyway, and no reports/prosecutions for flying at 200ft following a river, and the fact that a lot of them couldn't find their own airfield anyway, with most bombers being unable to find a foreign city never mind drop a bomb on it (until the pathfinder squadrons came along) etc, etc, I agree with you completely.

But aren't we going a little too far here? I don't really want to tangle it with the dastardly Hun 20'000 ft over France, nor do I want to fly to a foreign city at night in IMC (not yet, anyway!;)) And I don't need to dress like Village People to drive the thirty minutes to Headcorn for my tailwheel lessons!

Your point about the future of GA is valid, I agree. I am passionate about the healthy future of GA in this country but surely it is not exclusive to the concept of seat-of-the-pants-type flying?

Kev.

[High Wing Drifter]

Kevmusic,

Doesn't read as a wind-up. There are many pilots who agree with you. LCD displays and lots of buttons have their place, but it is a uniquely satisfying experience feeling confident enough to rely on your discipline and nouse with little to assist you other than a line on the chart, a watch, an altimeter and an ASI. As Michael Wright says (see link below), flying is one of the few ways in which one can directly experience that era as people actually did 50, 60 even 80 years before.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/excessbaggage/index_20060805.shtml

[Chimbu chuckles]

I tend to think that the very fact that 'GA' is dieing while light sport aviation is booming might suggest that most people prefer simpler, cheaper aviating rather than expensive point to point gadget filled transport.

If/when I sell my Bo I will be buying a Steen Skybolt.:ok:

[foxmoth]

What I have yet to see is what IO540 is proposing as his sylabus!
I presume he wants to teach people without bothering with the basics of how to fly (turning, S & L, climbing and descending etc) and he wants nav teaching with GPS, not bothering with the stuff that will get you out of trouble when the fancy kit breaks down.:confused:

[pulse1]

Kev,

There are many ways of enjoying flying and people fly for a variety of reasons. Many people like you enjoy the traditional connection with our history just as many sailors enjoy sailing in classic boats and the fellowship which goes with it. I know from my own experience that musicians have similar variations in their enjoyment of music.

The problem I found with learning to fly by the WWII method, non radio in a Tiger Moth, was that I felt inadequately trained to operate in more controlled environments which my PPL qualified me for. Being very cautious by nature, this limited the scope of my flying for some years until I undertook further training.

Since WWII the PPL syllabus has changed to include more modern techology with the introduction of the 3 hours instrument flying. I know that they did this in Tigers in WWII but all my attempts to fly a Tiger on instruments would have led to a failure. It is only because I had to re-qualify in more modern aeroplanes after a long break that I have had any instrument training at all.

I now fly, like most of us, with a GPS on which I probably rely more than I think I do. (In the sense that I sometimes ask myself if I would be doing this if I did not have a GPS i.e in less than good visibility) I have had no training in its use whatsoever.

In my view, the PPL syllabus should be modernised to include GPS appreciation, whatever aircraft you are flying. The navigation test should include a simulated GPS failure.

Incidentally, when I did my PPL in the 60's I scrounged a wizzwheel which looked old and worn enough to have been used in WWII. I was amazed when my son was recently issued with an identical wizzwheel for his flying training in the Navy. My next door neighbour is now using my old wheel for his PPL - I wonder how many people have learned with it.

[foxmoth]

the PPL syllabus should be modernised to include GPS appreciation, whatever aircraft you are flying.
Sorry I do not agree here, IMHO the PPL as it stands gives you the basics for flying a modern aircraft, there are areas that could do with updating such as allowing electronic methods in place of the wizwheel and R/T is a good thing to include, though it should not be compulsory if you do want to go right back to grass roots on a Moth. GPS training etc should be more available as add on courses after the basics.

[IO540]

I don't know why people here think I want to close down traditional flying, and get everybody to fly IFR space-wagons :ugh:

As I wrote earlier, this debate comes down to the individual v. collective position.

Almost everybody here is adopting the individual position. Fine. That's very much the way in UK GA, isn't it :ugh: As the old joke goes: put 4 pilots on an island; a month later they have set up 5 pilot forums (each with 20 members all using nicknames), 4 user groups, and 1 splinter group.

What I said is that the traditionalist approach is going to drive GA into the ground - because not enough punters are interested in it. If you disagree, fair enough, but to me it seems very self evident. Maybe I mix (and fly) with too many non-GA people, and listen to their views on the matter.

This is not the same thing, BTW, as saying that aerobatic flight is unpopular. It could well be that there would be a lot of activity on the aero front, if suitably promoted as a fun sport. Currently, more or less the only people that get into it are those who did a normal PPL and then felt like having a go at it, and liked it.

As for syllabus changes, I'd kill off the slide rule and bring in an electronic (E6B) method like they widely do in FAA land. The worn out argument about batteries going flat is barmy because nobody short of an ex RAF navigator can use one airborne anyway. I'd teach more instrument flight, because it's unreasonable to expect a PPL to remain VFR every instant, and basic instrument capability will save his life sooner or later. I'd bring in radio nav (VOR/DME/GPS) so that a PPL is capable of flying an entire route with it - this is actually really easy; obviously more so with a GPS but really anybody can track a VOR as well. A DME is so obvious it doesn't really need teaching. I would also do what the FAA does re equipment: the pilot must demonstrate (on the checkride) mastery of everything that is installed; that will ensure that owners of the better equipped planes actually know which knob does what. A somewhat tongue in cheek thing would be to make Navbox standard issue :)

[Shunter]

I have to say, as someone who *hasn't* been flying for 20 odd years or more, that I started my PPL training in January this year. I passed my skills test and applied for my license with 45 hours exactly on my logbook and have now pased 75 hours TT.

I'm not going to try and pretend I'm the world's best pilot, but I am confident in my own ability. I've been riding fast bikes for 15 years, pulling them apart, inserting more horsepower, putting them back together again etc etc... so technically I find myself fairly in tune with most things mechanical.

I love being challenged, and as such enjoy the planning, the weather, the winds, the plog, the windshear, and hell.. just the unexpected. I've got total admiration for anyone who puts the technology to one side and really embraces polishing the skill involved in flying at the most rudimentary level.

I've heard a lot about "GA is dead" etc etc.. but it's just not true. I'm putting together a group at the moment of people just like me, all in their early 30's, keen, enthusiastic, new PPL's who think exactly along the same lines. Sharp, heads-screwed-on-the-right-way people who want to stretch themselves, increase their knowledge and experience, and be the best pilots they can.

A pretty bad analogy I'm sure, but I have 2 neighbours... both think they're B-road heros. 1 has a BMW M5 with abs, esp, bbc, itv etc... the other has a Westfield kit-car he built himself. I'm pretty sure that the BMW guy would end up in a mess a lot quicker than the Westfield guy if they swapped cars and he was deprived of his techno safety-net.

My opinion, and it's merely that, is yes... use the GPS and all the other toys, but when push comes to shove, there's nothing more personally fulfilling than throwing the technology out of the window and knowing you're safe in the air with little more than a compass, map and a decent helping of brain power.

[foxmoth]

The changes proposed (apart from getting rid of the whizwheel which I think 90%+ agree with) just seem to be adding to the PPL and increasing its cost - hardly the way to make it more popular - What is needed is to get away from the concept that the PPL is the end of the road, fine bring these things in as options during the course at the appropriate stage, but it should also be the case that "advanced" training is promoted more.

[shortstripper]

I agree with Foxmoth. After all, even you IO540 started will a basic PPL. What you've added to it after has been been your choice. You managed ok and went the direction you chose. Leave others to their choice and stop assuming that any way other than yours will bring about the demise of GA. Statements like

What I said is that the traditionalist approach is going to drive GA into the ground - because not enough punters are interested in it. If you disagree, fair enough, but to me it seems very self evident. Maybe I mix (and fly) with too many non-GA people, and listen to their views on the matter.

I probably mix with far more non GA people than you ... (how many farm workers and the like do you know who fly?), Most I speak to are far more attracted to microlights and biplanes than plastic fantastic, though I admit not all! The point is, I don't assume that they all think the same as me and can accept that the new/old lobbies are pretty evenly split. I also believe they can easily co-exist and even enhance each other.

SS

[Say again s l o w l y]

The problem I see here is that folks like IO540 see the PPL training as the be all. When in fact it is just a basic licence to teach you how to fly from A to B and not kill yourself.

In the same way, a CPL doesn't in anyway prepare you for a life in the airlines. So we do type ratings and line training, to compensate for it. A CPL is just a basic minimum requirement. It shows you have reached a standard, so that you can continue to learn and get better.

Basic licences are only the start of your training though. If you want to do something more advanced, then get further training. This however is the area the PPL training industry falls down massively, there isn't much around for more advanced training, though there isn't an enormous call for it either since people who fly like IO540 are very much thin on the ground in the PPL world.

I wish there were more like him though!

[IO540]

If I ask Person X for his view on something, then I can expect to get his view on it, and I am not going to moan about it. I think half the people here haven't actually read what I have written.

Don't forget who started this thread. It wasn't me; it was somebody I've never heard of. Perhaps somebody put him up to it. It doesn't, to the best of my recollection, join up to anything recently discussed here (although the subject of modern v. traditional has come up before a number of times). I just replied to the "open question", even though it seemed a pretty silly thing to just pick on me.

As for adding specific modules, yes that sounds a good idea and I believe that has been proposed in the past, possibly by AOPA. I would suggest that (even if the CAA went for it) there would be few takers because few GA pilots will bother to spend money on anything unless they get additional privileges. And since this is not ICAO, any such privileges would be limited to the UK only, like the NPPL and the IMCR. I also can't possibly imagine what they could be, since there is a clear demarcation line between the PPL and the IMCR/IR.

Such a system seems to work OK in gliding, but that's a different game in which nobody gets any official privileges anyway (afaik) so it's all about self improvement.

[kevmusic]

10540, of course you haven't heard of me. I haven't been mooching around here for very long and I don't have much to say on anything particularly important in this walk of life. But, guess what.......I haven't heard of you either! I know that you have made umpteen million posts and that you have trenchant opinions on one or two things and er....., that's it.

I seem to have been guilty of a near-wind-up here (nearly had me thread deleted because of it!:eek:) and I've no idea why! Who is the great man? On who's precious toes have I trod?

And I "picked on you" for no other reason than a couple of your recent answers on this theme.

[Saab Dastard]

My thoughts on this - having read several such threads - are that there is an increasing polarisation in GA.

On the one hand are those who wish to use aviation primarily (not necessarily exclusively) for pleasure, and on the other are those who primarily use it as a means of transport.

Neither group is right or wrong, neither is better or worse than the other.

However, as the polarisation becomes more pronounced, the demand for "General Purpose" aviation is diminished.

The effect of this is likely to be that many general purpose airfields - particularly those with paved runways and / or imperilled by development - will become economically unviable, principally because "sport aviation" - e.g. microlighting, farm-strip flying etc. - really doesn't contribute much towards these airfields. So more people are pushed out of or away from aviation - whether it's because it's now too far to the nearest airfield, or there's no FTC any more, or any maintenance facility etc.

That then means that "transport" GA is forced, more and more, to use the larger "commercial" airfields, thus further increasing the costs and possibly driving more people away from GA.

I'm not trying to argue that farm-strip flyers should subsidise the ILS at such-and-such an airfield - I'm simply saying that unless more people use GA as a means of transport then it will soon become a sad reality that it will no longer be possible to do so - for anyone.

And I think that the only way that that can be done is to have better equipped aircraft and pilots appropriately trained to use the equipment effectively to fly safely from A to B in the UK's (over?)-regulated airspace and weather conditions.

And if the quality of the equipment (and the pilots using it) were to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th Century, then maybe (just maybe) the rules governing the use of the airspace could be similarly updated.

But if the only form of GA available is PFA & farm-strip flying, its voice will be seriously diminished, and its ability to influence the wider aviation scene commensurately reduced.

NPPL anyone?

SD

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Well, well, well children this is an interesting thread.

Please allow me to give my slant on this.

I learned to fly in the days of Radio Range navagation and using the astro compass and progressed through the years to the glass cockpit.

Now that I have sort of retired I am building a Cub to fly outside controlled airspace.
So what does thet tell you? :E

Chuck E.

[dublinpilot]

I think the biggest problem with what we have a present, is that so many people get their licence, and realise that it doesn't allow them to do what they had thought it would. They stick around a little while longer, and then get disillusioned, and leave.

People who train at small airports tend to be scared of large airports. People who train at large airports tend to be scarred of small airports. People who learn at uncontrolled airports tend to be scared of ATC, and people who learn in an ATC environment tend to be scared of the "free for all" at uncontrolled airports. All newly qualified pilots don't seem to have the basic knowledge required to make an international trip, nor do they have the skills to perform any aerobatics. Most newly qualified pilots are too scared to fly in anything other than near perfect conditions.

My proposal would to be have three different PPL courses. Each would cover all the basics, but have a different emphases, and then the student would be much more likely to get PPL training that they found useful.

One course would cover the traditionalist methods, with plenty of time given to DR navigation, and much less given to controlled airspace crossings, radio nav, R/T etc. This could cater for those who wanted to enjoy the history, and the challenge, and didn't want the complications of modern aviation.

Another course could give much less time to navigation, and spend lots of time on handling, and some basic aero's, catering for those who didn't intend to go too far, but rather wanted to be able to ride an aerial roller coaster. (Ok....I've never been in an aircraft doing aero's, but I assume that's what it's like!)

And another again could be geared towards those who wished to use their privileges for touring, and "going places". It would teach GPS as the principle method of nav, VOR/DME/NDB as the second method, and spend less time on DR. In fact most of what's required to know about GPS can be done in a ground briefing and just needing a little time in the air, so most of the nav part would concentrate on VOR/DME/NDB, and just enough on DR to make sure the pilot could use it as a backup. Concentration could also be made towards dealing with ATC, and visiting large controlled and small uncontrolled airfields, and perhaps even an international trip. Weather planning would also be an important area.

Everyone would still qualify with the same privileges, as they do today. And just like today, if they wish to explore their privileges in an area that they haven't received sufficient training in then they would have to seek out further training.

But at least people would now be qualifying with a chosen emphasis in their training, and they would be more likely to find that their PPL training left them with the experience and skills to do the sort of flying that they want to do. Then they are more likely to stick with it long term, and GA would have a brighter future.

dp

[Mixed Up]

I've never understood IO540's argument, but I think it is that he wants to drive us poor sods out of GA in order for GA flourish. His non-flying millionaire friends will all flock to the flying clubs (they'll be like posh golf clubs) and they'll be having posh dinner parties where they discuss their latest purchases of Cirrus and (sorry I don't know the names of any other posh planes) etc. So GA will boom.

Then one day of them will die and they'll all reflect on how scared they really are when they are hurled through the sky in their plastic buckets, and they'll return to frequenting the golf clubs once again. And GA will die.
The people who now struggle to fly privately do so becuase it is their passion. It is not a means of transport.

(Incidentally - I am not slagging off plastic planes and I may well buy a cheap one myself one day.)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Well, well, well children this is an interesting thread.
Please allow me to give my slant on this.
I learned to fly in the days of Radio Range navagation and using the astro compass and progressed through the years to the glass cockpit.
Now that I have sort of retired I am building a Cub to fly outside controlled airspace.
So what does thet tell you? :E
Chuck E.

A purely personal veiw:

A Cub, outside controlled airspace, in the calm of a summer evening is about as good as it gets (L4 or J3, door open of course).

In the same league are gentle aeros in the Chippy as part of a lovely clear VFR bimble around your favorite part of country (North Wales and Shopshire does it for me).

Watching a glass panel in IMC in a plastic hot ship while burning the miles away until establishing on the destination ILS? Doesn't float my boat. I'd rather go BA and enjoy a G&T down the back.

Each to their own. But I think it's not for nothing that the growth area looks like farm strips and modern airframes/engines, together with traditional vintage and PFA types. Prob not-a-lot for the future of spam cans.

SSD

[S-Works]

Bloody Hells Fire!! Whats the sudden attack on IO540 for? I love the super slick glass widgetry and airways flyings, long distance touring and making the job as complex as possible. I also like bimbling around in the cub (as I did today) with teh radio off and the map folded away navigating from memory.

He has very valid points about the state of GA and the fact that it is in decline because of an aging sylabus and aging fleet. It is a fact that a lot of the sylabus is out of date and the tools used (whizz wheel) are also out of date. Post PPL there should be options to train further without going down the commercial route but there are not. As somone who has just gone through the CPL/IR route for advancement rather than career it is not for the faint hearted.

Whatever your leaning in aviation you make your own choices.

To run a thread attacking IO540 for having an opinion is just stupid and cruel.

[kevmusic]

To run a thread attacking IO540 for having an opinion is just stupid and cruel.
For heaven's sake!!:rolleyes: I started with a smile, I asked politely, I was curious and I thanked him!

10540 posted on two occasions specifically attacking WW2-style training, both in the last 14 days or so. As that is a particular interest of mine, I wanted to know what his beef was.

[kevmusic]

I am concerned that on many occasions, a thread that starts as an innocent query or observation quickly goes down the route of slagging off this or that individual. I am particularly sorry that it happened to 10540 (as I would be to anybody else) and that I inadvertantly set the ball rolling. I never intended it to be thus and I hope he accepts my apology. I have recently been on the recieving end myself and it is not at all pleasant.

Interesting points have been made along the way and I have learned something positive from the replies. It's a pity it got personal, though.

Kev.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Maybe everyone should get together and have a party and get to know each other....a equal mix of sexes of course.:E

[englishal]

One very valid point made by IO is that during WW2 there was no airspace around. Even before and after this there was no airspace around. I would love to be able to set off on a jolly to the Scilly Isles on any route I choose and just put my ship down in a field and roll out the picnic for lunch. It would be fun to see my mate standing at the airfield and dive bomb him for a laugh, pulling up feet above his head before doing some aero's and landing in time for tea and crumpets.....all with a fare paying passenger in the back (Marrazan - Nevil Shute).. Try it today and you would be locked up probably ............times change

As Ernest K Gann described in "Fate is the hunter" when the radio ranging station was off air......"we had to resort to the terriby out dated dead reckoning" (or words to that effect). Fine if you enjoy it and are good at it, but unless you do more than 12 hours in 2 years, don't expect to be able to avoid controlled airspace using it ;) And really, don't expect to navigate 100's of mile cross countries across Europe using it. Bet you $1000,000 if GPS was around in WW2, they would have been using it.

Now there is a difference between Navigating WW2 style, and being able to fly well. Some people are very good at "stick and rudder" flying, whereas others are very good at procedural flying, and occasionally someone is good at both. The PPL barely touches on both....so don't expect to be any hot shot when you get your licence......

[foxmoth]

few GA pilots will bother to spend money on anything unless they get additional privileges.

Not so sure about that, UH run an advanced PPL course that seems to be getting more and more popular and there are NO additional privelages for that apartfrom comming out a better pilot (yes there is an insurance discount, but this does not affect the many that come but do not have their own aircraft).
- And I STILL have not seen a sensible proposal for a sylabus to replace the "aging out o date WW2-style training".:mad:

[IO540]

foxmoth

And I STILL have not seen a sensible proposal for a sylabus to replace the "aging out o date WW2-style training".

If you want to keep the present good old tried and tested works-without-batteries stuff like the circular slide rule, and you want to limit the PPL the 45 hours, then you can't have a different syllabus!

I don't think one can do a wholesale revision of the syllabus, because it has to produce pilots who can fly the present (largely decrepit Cessnas/Pipers) fleet and not get killed, well not right away, anyway. In fact the pilot needs to be able to fly anything within PPL privileges, which is just about anything that doesn't require diff training or a type rating.

But I do think one could change small parts, and I have already wrote them down. Did you see it? If you saw it, what do you specifically disagree with?

I don't think it is a duty of the training to preserve goode olde England (image of a uniformed RAF officer having a picnic with some well endowed girl, with the Spitfire parked right there). It should move with the times, while driving GA forward. Every other training syllabus works that way. Modernising it would also attract more customers. Now, there's a word which is totally unheard in GA training!

The way things are going (evidence of license issue numbers can be found on the CAA website, for one example) all that will be left in 10-20 years' time will be farm strip flyers (in small numbers because most strips can't support much more activity than present), and pilots who can park at Southampton, Bournemouth, Luton, Southend, etc. This will cause a huge reduction in PPL training, in turn depriving the GA scene of new pilots.

Currently, you can fly the whole length of say Italy and not see or hear another light aircraft. Same flying from UK to say S. Spain. Such a change from England and it's often solid radio traffic and many sightings. There are some down there but very few. Anybody who thinks that things can just be left alone ought to get out more.

One needs a thick skin to write this stuff, evidently. Why do I bother? Probably just about one person I knew when I did my PPL in 2000 is still flying now. Go figure.

[Fuji Abound]

A few years ago I took my “uncle” to Duxford. He flew in the B of B. I recall him telling me if you hadn’t gone solo after eight hours serious questions were asked, by ten, you were unlikely to survive the course. Amazing.

He hadn’t flown for fifty or more years. His eyesight was poor. I have no doubt he could have landed the aircraft which he flew from the right hand very well.

However, these guys were the cream of the crop. They learnt to fly on aircraft which by “modern” standards were difficult to fly and they learnt quickly. Most of us don’t fit into that category - as much as we would like to think we are budding top guns!

Their training taught them to aviate. The aircraft they flew demanded sound stick and rudder skills - rarely learnt these days, and flying skills that did not depend on many “modern” innovations. These skills will always be important. A pilot taught these basic skills will find himself able to convert to any type or aviating discipline with greater ease. Consider for one moment that most pilots have a dreadful cross wind landing technique because they learnt on types that will forgive almost anything, with instructors who turn a blind eye to motionless feet and hands.

I suspect IO540 would argue it is the navigational skills that were taught that are irrelevant to todays world. Surprisingly, my Uncle also told me WW2 navigation worked amazingly well, however he admitted it was many hundred of hours before pilots mastered these skills.

Are these skills relevant today. No. The reality is most pilots will fly with a GPS or radio navigational aids. Therefore they should be taught how to use these aids.

So to sum up modern training fails to teach pilots basic aviating skills as well as WW2 pilots and it cant quite make up its mind whether or not to embrace new navigational technology.

WW2 pilots had something going for them then!

(So if you learn to fly as they did, you will aviate better than the modern crop, but were it me ditch the WW2 slide rule, learn the modern stuff, and then if you enjoy navigation join the precision flyers [http://www.bppa.info/] and learn how to do it properly)

[foxmoth]

As far as the circular slide rule goes I think that most people agree that is outdated and should go (see my previous post).
I don't think one can do a wholesale revision of the syllabus, because it has to produce pilots who can fly the present (largely decrepit Cessnas/Pipers) fleet and not get killed, well not right away, anyway. In fact the pilot needs to be able to fly anything within PPL privileges, which is just about anything that doesn't require diff training or a type rating.

There is nothing that says you have to train for this - no reason that you cannot train in a modern aircraft with all the gear in you want and learn to use this kit during your training using a completely revised sylabus- what the cost would be for doing this is another matter and I think you would not find that it really encourages people to learn to fly any more than learning on a Cessna/Piper or similar (Both of which I am not a big fan of for teaching on as I think they "drive" rather than fly).
The fact that you are then qualified to then fly a Cessna or similar means no more than if you were qualified on a Piper with retracts and VP props and you then bought a Spitfire - yes you would be qualified to fly it with no further instruction, but how many would do so?

[IO540]

Like I said earlier, one needs to agree the terms of reference first :)

For an individual, there is no problem with preserving the status quo. Better make sure you have your own strip though, and your plane runs off mogas.

I suspect that views on what, if anything, should be changed in this business would be polarized sharply along the line of who has and who does not have this level of security. A good exercise for Statistics 101.

This is probably also at the root of the lack of any useful representation of GA at the UK political level - there are too many separate groups to represent. The only thing which most pilots will agree on is the closure of their local grass airfield.

Fuji - yes I do think it is the nav skills that are the most inappropriately taught. Plus weather - one should be taught how to get this via the internet. For some reason the CAA is very much against the internet; they are still handing out those silly booklets with premium rate numbers in them.

The rest is about right. But it is the nav skills that determine whether the pilot can fly from Goodwood to Beachy Head on a perfect day, or go somewhere more interesting...

Of course, 50 people will now jump on me saying that, actually, flying a local bimble is all they want to do, and I have no right to criticise that. Again, this is the individual v. collective position. Back to sq. 1.

I am off flying now, if I can get the plane out of the hangar (unlikely).

[scooter boy]

:ok: I would just like to say how much sense and information IO540's frequent postings bring to this forum - his opinions are often strongly held and we may not always agree with them but they are usually based in reason and he rarely posts anything that he cannot defend.
I like him and his posts - I think he enriches this forum.
To post a thread that leads him into an ambush of criticism is utterly reprehensible.

Those WWII guys made the best of the equipment they had and I don't think any of us doubt their abilities, bravery and the sacrifice they made - especially during rememberance week. If anybody wants to learn to fly with those skills then fine, good on you.

It really boils down to the kind of flying you want to do.

Modern technology has its advantages though and although there are those out there who like to decry it because they do not want it or cannot afford it what they cannot deny is the enhanced safety and situational awareness that it brings.
I agree that the "whizz-wheel" should be removed from the syllabus - utterly crap piece of kit.
I agree that VOR nav should be taught (I taught it to myself on a solo X/C at 10000ft over the Sierra Nevada - map and compass pretty useless up there in gusty winds when every mountain peak and every lake and highway looks the same).
I also agree that moving map GPS ahould be included in the syllabus - mine could not find a fix yesterday and so I just followed the landmarks til I got to my destination (when it came back on line).
All in addtion to basic stick and rudder skills, pilotage and RT.
Aviate, navigate then communicate.

I love poling around of a still summer's evening too but I also like breaking out at 250ft on the ILS and squeaking the gear down on a wet runway. Both are fun - both are equally valid ways to fly.


IO540 - I love you, man!:D keep up the controversial posts - I brightens up my day.

SB

[S-Works]

Well said SB. I have always found IO540's post to be helpfull and informative. I have gained a huge amount of aviation resources that aid my flying as a result of his extensive and accurate research. He may seem opinionated but I think it is more the fact the he is prepared to say what he thinks instead of just defending the same old position.

My grandfather flew in the war and after it. He also taught navigation to trainee RAF pilots during his long and illustrious career. Every month I fly to Durham and collect him. Always IFR and often in terrible weather. He thinks the modern avionics in my aircraft are stunning and was most surprised when I started flying that we still used the CRP, in fact he gave me his that is a geniune "warbird" and I did my PPL/CPL ground school using it! He could not understand why we did not use electronic calculators!

His view was that old fashioned dead reckoning was fine if there were no other options but GPS and VOR/DME etc should be the primary nav methods and the map a secondary sanity check. I have followed this advice and never had a problem.

He loves being shoe horned into the chippy but equally loves popping out with the runway in the right place at the end of an ILS when I take him home and even at 82yrs old flys better than I would ever hope to.

[shortstripper]

I have no grudge against IO540, and have said that much of what he says makes good sense. I just happen to think he is wrong in his thoughts that GA will die unless we all modernise. No ... GA will die if all the seperate factions do not get together and lobby together to prevent draconian rules from killing the cheaper grass roots stuff. Microlighting, , paragliding, gliding ect thrive because they are cheap and basic (I don't see a similar boom in GA that I do in microlighting for instance) . Without them though, GA will perish as few will enter unless they intend to fly professionally, in other words the fun will have left. Things like Mode S will not stop the likes of IO540 from flying, but it may well stop me and my like from being able to continue. Without the cheap fun flyers, the scene as we know it really will just dissappear as there will be few left to "move up".

I admit the PPL course is a bit antiquated, but it does essentially teach you to fly and gives you the rudiments of navigation. There should be more on offer in the way of advanced courses and I guess basis GPS use should be covered in the PPL itself. However, to virtually change the whole course would be expensive, need EU wide approval and would end up with what? You still need to learn how to fly, so what would you change there? Navigation? maybe? but what exactly would you change? You could add things like radio nav and GPS in an in depth way, but that would add hours and drive the cost up. What would it achieve? Far better to have seperate well promoted post PPL courses in these things. They wouldn't need to be expensive and could perhaps reduce insurance premiums as an incentive? Microlighters have a restricted licence route, most soon upgrade to unrestricted, so it shows that an add-on /advance, system of licence enhancement can work.

I like IO540's posts as well. They always stimulate debate, which is a good thing. So what that he sets himself up for attack? (which he does) ... I seem to do similar each time I post on PPL instructors.

SS

[IO540]

I didn't say GA will die unless we all modernise.

The "end" is what already exists in most of Europe:

You have an active ultralight scene, operating from various grass strips, some public and some private. These little planes have a low stall speed so can operate from say 300m of grass, which is basically any reasonable grass field. The regulatory future of this group is secure - most politicians and regulators accept basic VFR flight as comparable with any sport: scuba, mountaineering, biking, etc.

You also have a very small "IFR tourer" population, based largely at the larger airports. This group is very small; I guess under 1000 active PPL/IR pilots in the whole of Europe, and majority will be under FAA. These have plenty of money, and they need it. The entry level for real IFR is about £100k and that gets you something quite old. Otherwise, £250k+. The training is also a major "life exercise"; I took 5 years to slot it all in although it could be done much faster. Of course above that you have the turboprops and bizjets...

The "in-between" is the interesting bit, and this is where UK differs from Europe. In the UK, airfields are not usually subsidised by the local authority, or anybody else. Most European airfields are subsidised, either by the local chamber of commerce, or by something else. In the USA, the whole ground infrastructure is heavily subsidised.

In the UK, if you start to wipe out the "in between" stuff, a lot of airfields will close. The likes of Wellesbourne, Stapleford, Goodwood, Shoreham, Compton Abbas, etc, will all go. They get a lot of income from PPL training (which is declining quite noticeably) and from operators of the normal spamcan types.

It's possible that the modern composite planes that are coming out of Europe will stop the rot, but they aren't cheap. In the UK, very few people can afford to spend £30k on a reasonable PA28. Most of the reasonable composites are at/above that level. I don't think the capital is there, in sufficient numbers, in the UK GA scene. This is self evident from a look at the mostly rotting equipment at your local airfield. How far can you run a 1970 C150, paying £7k at every Annual?

Paradoxically, GA is much bigger in the UK, currently, but is more secure long-term elsewhere in Europe, because of the airfield subsidies.

A complete revamp of training is impossible, and even if it were totally desirable it would never happen (EU/JAA/EASA/ICAO context) so there is no point in considering it. But little bits could be changed, and I have already written down which bits I would change. These bits can be put in anytime.

Perhaps one sticking point is that there is no mandatory ground school in the PPL. I doubt the flight training business would want any - they are dead against anything that makes the PPL more expensive on their price list (which is why they drove for the NPPL, IMHO). All they want to do is take a student up in a plane - you then bill him for X hours flying, plus X hours for the instruction. That's why "club fly-outs" tend to be organised to have a student in the LH seat - to maximise the billing. Ground school doesn't pay, and if it did, the PPL would cost more... :ugh:

Yet, ground school would be necessary if one was to modernise the syllabus. It doesn't matter which bit you pick to change; it's all additional technical content and one can't teach that in the air.

Any change would have to come down from the CAA. Nobody else will do it.

[Fuji Abound]

"I just happen to think he is wrong in his thoughts that GA will die unless we all modernise. No ... GA will die if all the seperate factions do not get together and lobby together to prevent draconian rules from killing the cheaper grass roots stuff. Microlighting, , paragliding, gliding ect thrive because they are cheap and basic (I don't see a similar boom in GA that I do in microlighting for instance) ."

I don’t think this is what IO540 says. I agree with many of his views and it certainly is not what I would say.

GA MUST modernise. In my view modernise should not mean killing off the cheaper grass roots stuff, and nor should it mean preventing all aviators enjoying the same airspace.

It does however mean recognising:

1. Petrol is getting ever more costly and the "green" lobby will have more impact. Greener alternatives to engines that consume fuel like it was going out of fashion are a must. Efficient engines like the new high compression diesels and permit Rotax are the way ahead.

2. With greater congestion of air space and commercial operators on the "case" of GA at the slightest suggestion GA might impact on their operations efficient and accurate navigation is also a must. If for most that means moving map GPS that is the way ahead WITHOUT preventing those wanting and skilled in the more traditional methods from using these as well.

3. The GA fleet cannot last for ever. New aircraft today means new technology. No one is going to mass produce light aircraft with the sort of kit fitted forty years ago - because they will not sell to the mass market. Whether it is now, or in forty years time, get use to G1000s and Avidynse - they are here to stay.

There are certain fundamental “rights”. The basic aviatiating skills haven’t changed. Modern aircraft may have dumbed down these skills but there is no substitute for learning them well. However, the environment in which we operate has changed out of all recognition. The challenge is for all of us to learn to live together and more importantly to co-operate together in enjoying and preserving our freedom to use the sky in the way that best pleases us, whilst enabling everyone else to use it in the way that best pleases them.

Simple really.

[J.A.F.O.]

It doesn't, to the best of my recollection, join up to anything recently discussed here (although the subject of modern v. traditional has come up before a number of times). I just replied to the "open question", even though it seemed a pretty silly thing to just pick on me.


Come now, IO; you've posted nearly 4000 times and, as far as I remember, the majority of your posts put forward your view which, to the outsider who doesn't know you at all, seems to boil down to "if you don't have thousands to spend on glass cockpit shiny hotships and fly 200 hours a year then you should sod off". Sorry if that's not what you meant but it is how it seems, to me at least (and perhaps kev).

I don't think he's picked on you, you're just a very obvious presence on this forum; the fact that I happen to disagree with just about everything you say highlights that for me.

I don't mean to cause offence in any way at all and you are more than entitled to your opinion; I just wanted to offer probable cause for kev's original post.

Unfortunately these days many airfields are under threat from NIMBYs and house-builders and the larger airports make more money from no-frills regional airlines than from me or you, so they're pricing GA out of the marketplace.

I think that the future is microlights/PFA types from grass strips - not because of GA but because of outside factors.

Personally, that works for me - I agree with Chuck, SSD, shortstripper, etc who just want to pootle in something interesting for the sheer joy of it.

Horses for courses, I suppose - it just so happens that they're building more courses for my kind of horse these days.

[dublinpilot]

they are usually based in reason and he rarely posts anything that he cannot defend.

Isn't that the truth! :ok:

[BEagle]

I would certainly agree that much of the PPL navigation syllabus is archaic. It is as ridiculous that an electronic calculator is not permitted for navigation examinations as it is to expect candidates to memorise the factors needed for operating from wet grass etc.

Even more recent (only 15 years or so...) VFR techniques such as 'Standard Closing Angle' are viewed with suspicion by some.

Personally I would like to see the PPL navigation test completed before the Q X-C - and with use of GPS permitted for the first leg within equipment limitations. The second leg should include 'loss of GPS' and an in-flight diversion, but permit use of VOR/DME and any other pilot-interpreted aid.

But that would mean re-equipping many tatty old spamcans; fortunately all ours have twin VOR/ILS/GP with DME, panel-mounted GPS, Mode C...oh, and the obsolete anachronism of ADF.

[foxmoth]

So how about this - Do away with the mechanical calculator, nearly everyone agrees on this!
NPPL Doable in 25-30hrs, with LESS Nav and IF, restricted to a 25Nm radius from point of departure and instructor authorisation but able to carry pax. Instructing can be done by qualified PPL instructors.
Upgradable to - Unrestricted PPL with Instruction in Nav aids including GPS, this instruction could be either stand alone or combined with an IMC course and would not need the NPPL first but could be done straight off.
With this you would have a basic PPL fairly cheaply with the full PPL being much more comprehensive though costing a bit more, there is also enough difference in content and entitlement for to encourage those who want to use an aircraft as a serious means of transport to go for the full licence. At present I think the NPPL and the PPL have too little difference.:D

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Dublinpilot said:

People who train at small airports tend to be scared of large airports. People who train at large airports tend to be scared of small airports. People who learn at uncontrolled airports tend to be scared of ATC, and people who learn in an ATC environment tend to be scared of the "free for all" at uncontrolled airports.

Not sure that's true. I learnt at an airport which in those days had lots of scheduled movements per day, yet flew all of my qualifying X-countries to small grass airfields. I chose to fly Redhill to Shoreham direct overhead LGW (when you could) and had the encouragement of my instructor for being adventurous. I now fly from a small licensed grass strip, yet i'm happy to go to major airports and mix it with the big jets.(If I need to!). I'm not scared of ATC because I know that they are there to help me, not the other way round, especially those FISOs at Redhill and the ATCers at Southend who wan't to overcontrol outside their ATZ.

I think it all depends on the personality of the pilot and what experiences they have had during PPL training, bearing in mind that there are fewer and fewer 'Old bold intructors' and more and more types who can't wait to get on the flight deck....And knowing aviation law and regulations inside out so that you can stand your ground with confidence if you need to...!:ok:

PS. Maybe we should go back to basics and teach 'real' aviation. Leave the fancy stuff as an add-on until PPLs can actually fly the aeroplane without having to think about it. GPS & Radio Nav boxes do not equal safety

[IO540]

But that would mean re-equipping many tatty old spamcans

That is actually a very powerful reason for nothing whatever changing, for many more years. There is one common voice in GA: the flying schools. They make sure nothing changes.

So how about this - Do away with the mechanical calculator, nearly everyone agrees on this!

:ok:

NPPL Doable in 25-30hrs, with LESS Nav and IF, restricted to a 25Nm radius from point of departure and instructor authorisation but able to carry pax.

Not sure about that. I can fully see it would generate training revenue and this would be welcome by the schools, but it would generate mostly dead-end pilots. The "burger run" income for airfields, from this group, would be nil, because most of them wouldn't be able to find another airfield.

Instructing can be done by qualified PPL instructors.

:ok: Sadly, this would have to happen over the CAA's dead body because they regard the CPL as the cornerstone of anybody getting paid.

Upgradable to - Unrestricted PPL with Instruction in Nav aids including GPS, this instruction could be either stand alone or combined with an IMC course and would not need the NPPL first but could be done straight off.

:ok: That bit I agree with.

With this you would have a basic PPL fairly cheaply with the full PPL being much more comprehensive though costing a bit more, there is also enough difference in content and entitlement for to encourage those who want to use an aircraft as a serious means of transport to go for the full licence. At present I think the NPPL and the PPL have too little difference.

I think the reason there is so little difference, especially in reality, is because both have the same privileges within the UK, so the required skills are the same.

Let me (again) suggest having more nav and weather content (both bang up to date). Where will the extra time come from? 10 hours of mandatory ground school sounds reasonable; GS should not cost more than £20/hr so this is not a significant extra cost. Then eliminate the slide rule; that gains you at least 5 hours. That's 5 hours of informal GS, which the average school doesn't really like to do anyway. Formalising the GS and a syllabus for it would be a good idea.

The above is all within the CAA remit. Any more is in JAA land and will thus "never" happen. EASA is taking over FCL anyway soon. But EASA's latest proposal, a very good one too for a Euro-wide PPL, is already being sabotaged by the national CAAs. We shall see what comes out in the wash.....

Edit: The EASA angle is interesting. EASA is mostly French run, and the French are very pro-aviation. EASA's latest proposal is very frank in its evaluation of why Euro GA is so decrepit compared to its relatively more healthy USA version. Also, the French permit VMC flight above an overcast layer, which obviously requires radio nav, and nobody in their right mind would today exclude GPS.... watch this space, I would say... This probably explains why the national CAAs are against the proposal.

[englishal]

What would help is to de-regulate PPL training similar to what the microlight / glider people have enjoyed for a long time:

a) Not having to train at a CAA approved "school". One could then go out and rent a freelance instructor.
b) Allowing training in Private cat aircraft, even ones own
c) Allowing training at unlicenced fields
d) Allowing an achievable PPL FI rating which does not require a Class 1 medical or the CPL grpund exams to be taken, and also allows renumeration
e) relaxed medical requirements
f) Owner maintenance signed off by an inspector

There are many people out there who would make excellent instructors (I think IO would make a pretty good IMC / insturment instructor, probably better than your average professional instructor as he has an interest in the subject). I would do it during my time off for no more than beer money, but for the hassle of the Class 1 medical and CPL ground exams,and having to work for a licenced school and having to wear shirt and tie;)

I like to fly IFR with or without Glass cockpits, though I limit this to the USA where I can rent a suitable aeroplane for a reasonable price (BE76, G530 / traffic / XM 130 GBP per hour wet). I own a simple SE, VFR aeroplane in the UK and very much enjoy flying it. It only costs me 40 GBP per hour wet, plus 20 GBP per month for the hangar, with no landing fees at home.

Imagine if I was considering learning to fly. I buy part of a plane, pay 40 GBP (no pund symbol on this keyboard) to operate it, pay an instructor 20 GBP per hour for his experience and suddenly a 6000GBP PPL course costs me 2700 plus a few extras and I get to keep the plane afterwards;)

[foxmoth]

NPPL Doable in 25-30hrs, with LESS Nav and IF, restricted to a 25Nm radius from point of departure and instructor authorisation but able to carry pax.

Not sure about that. I can fully see it would generate training revenue and this would be welcome by the schools, but it would generate mostly dead-end pilots. The "burger run" income for airfields, from this group, would be nil, because most of them wouldn't be able to find another airfield.


The whole point here is to cover both ends of the spectrum, those who want what you seem to be aiming for and those who just want to learn to fly as cheaply as possible but do not want the microlight route - I think this allows for that - and you can still go on and upgrade later if you wish to.

I think the reason there is so little difference, especially in reality, is because both have the same privileges within the UK, so the required skills are the same.
Again this is part of the reasoning in my proposal, not only does it give you a shorter route to a PPL but also has a difference in privilages - at present there seems very little reason for the NPPL apart from the medical requirements.

[IO540]

englishal

Some of your list

a) Not having to train at a CAA approved "school". One could then go out and rent a freelance instructor.
b) Allowing training in Private cat aircraft, even ones own
c) Allowing training at unlicenced fields
d) Allowing an achievable PPL FI rating which does not require a Class 1 medical or the CPL grpund exams to be taken, and also allows renumeration
e) relaxed medical requirements
f) Owner maintenance signed off by an inspector

is already possible. I think a) is (although you may have to find a "school" for the skills test), b) is if you own it 100% (owner+spouse can), f) also can be done, and "in reality" the owner can do anything so long as a LAME signs it off.

The problem we have to be careful with is ICAO. I do reckon that not being able to fly abroad is a major long term disadvantage. I know many here disagree, but then nearly all PPL holders don't fly for anything remotely like "long term", and also the training is so basic that most are scared of going abroad, so this never becomes a widely discussed issue.

One needs an ICAO compliant medical. The CAA one is well above ICAO, like most things they do, but one needs more than just a GP signoff (AIUI).

Owner maintenance is OK for the 50hr checks in Private Cat G-reg (or Part 91 operated N-reg). This leaves the Annuals.

I don't have the EASA proposal to hand but if this came in, you would have a Euro-wide "NPPL", and then it doesn't matter if it is sub-ICAO because European geography is such that few pilots will fly outside EASA-land anyway.

[FLCH-SPD]

I'd bring in radio nav (VOR/DME/GPS) so that a PPL is capable of flying an entire route with it - this is actually really easy; obviously more so with a GPS but really anybody can track a VOR as well. A DME is so obvious it doesn't really need teaching

IO540,

I remember a while back you gave some advice about radio nav in a previous thread and as a basic PPL holder I took on board your suggestions. I must say that they have totally changed the way I fly. I now navigate with confidence, I'm happy to fly using DR, but use radio aids as a "back-up" to monitor track keeping etc. I often plan routes based on radio aids because IMHO I believe that it reduces workload, improves confidence, and gives the VFR pilot more time to do what's important...lookout! The PPL syllabus teaches you to track VOR's and obtain a position fix, but almost as though it should be used when you're in trouble. Why not use it to stay out of trouble.

There are certain routes that I would have avoided like the plague for fear that DR would not be accurate enough for me to feel confident about avoiding CAS. The corridor between Luton and Stansted is a perfect example: made easier by tracking BKY-BPK. :ok:

[Justiciar]

GA is an industry like any other and its failures are in attracting people into learning to fly and then keeping them. Whether you use a wizz wheel or Garmin 430 is less important than getting new people into the flying schools, getting them trained and then, most important of all, keeping them interested. Without this the whole industry will implode as it fails to maintain critical numbers which are necessary to keep profitable the businesses which support the industry.

Although it is not a true analogy, look at motoring. If it was compulsory to learn on a morris minor, learn hand signals and not drive above 40 mph and be charged huge amounts of money, most people would think this mad and unacceptable. This is the state of GA: Old aircraft, expensive, variable quality of instructors and nevigation technique 50 years out of date.

The French have a different approach and a vibrant GA industry. They do it by club flying, which keeps the proce of flying down Instructors are largely unpaid and the club does not seek to make a profit to the extent that a commercial organisation does. True, some also keep costs down by owning their own airfields and those that don't are subsidised.

We are stuck with a more commercial approach. Light modern sports aircraft must surely be part of the answer, with their lower maintainence and fuel consumption. Englishal has highlighted some very sensible moves which would drive down the cost of flying. I suspect that with EASA some of these will actually come to pass.

This thread started with a comparison between modern and WWII flying. This is in my view a false comparison. The RAF in the early 1940s was one of best equipped and best trained airforces in the world. The design of the Spitfire and subsequent aircraft placed it in the forfront of technical design. Lets not get sentimental about this: the pilots of the 1940s would embrace anything which improved their performance and helped them stay alive. Seeing this as some sort of battle between the two camps will result in GA withering whilst people argue. What type of flying people take to in the years after qualifying is far less important than ensuring that they retain the interest and dont fall by the wayside.

[Fuji Abound]

Justiciar

I very much agree with your post.

The aircraft on the whole are antiquated.

The training schools on the whole have forgotten customers are customers.

The navigational training for the basic PPL has barely changed since the dawn of sailing, never mind flying.

However, and as you correctly state, in my view the real problem is keeping new pilots involved. I suspect the reason they stay involved with gliding and micros is because as you also suggest they train and fly in a club environment that is keen to retain them as members and support their hobby.

I suspect most flying schools loose all interest as soon as the pilot has his PPL, unless of course they catch the whiff of an IMC or night rating when their interest might be held for as long as it takes to get the pundits cheque book out again.

[IO540]

Last two - could not have put it better myself.

[S-Works]

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Once a flying "club" have had the PPL/Night/IMC out of you they are only interested in renting you the double slot bacon butty flights. Restrictive rules on rental for trips like the 3hrs a day minima, ripping people off for cross channel checks etc. You soon start to get bored with doing the same 1hr each way spoke trips from home base, a night away for a good trip suddenly runs into a grand and that equates to a familly holiday for some and suddenly flying goes out the window.

The reason most of us as "serious" flyers go into groups or our own aircraft so we can get the flexability and the availability to go further. It is amazing the number of flying schools that pretty much ostracize the private owner as soon as they stop making money out of them. It has happened to me so I talk from experiance. When what they should really do is try and get the private owners and the students to mix and share flying. The problem is that the schools think that they will lose the revenue from the renters if they go off with the private owners without realising they are going to lose them anyway through boredom. Keep them flying and they will come back for the renewals and the odd rental, milk them until they are bored and they never come back.

The school I learnt with is a great school and the group flyouts that used to happen were a very formulative experiance for me. Most of the flyouts were a good mix of private owners and club aircraft and a good sociable atmosphere. This kept the private owners as club members and things like renewals etc were small but steady revenue for the club. The flyouts dwindled as did the invites to them, as a result I no longer pay club membership and rarely visit. Sad to say I have felt as if I am not wanted because I don't do my renewals with them (I can't as they have no one who can renew my ratings) and my maintanance is done elsewhere (again no reflection on them as they were a first class organisation but where I am based my maintanance is 50ft away and also do a first class job) and as a private owner I am not renting school aircraft.

When schools start to realise that revenue comes from good will as well as putting tin in the air they may be more successfull at retaining pilots.

[pulse1]

I've been thinking about this problem since this thread started and found myself comparing my various experiences in flying clubs to those associated with my other love, sailing. It seems to me that there are many similarities beween these activities and a few very big differences. Both activities attract a wide variety of types who want different things.

The essential difference is that most sailing clubs exist for the benefit of ALL of their members and they are organised to provide the facilities required for each type of activity e.g. dinghy racing, cruising, classic boats, instruction etc.. This means that sailing clubs tend to be much bigger than flying clubs which gives them the financial clout to provide those facilities e.g. marinas. clubhouses, racing etc.

Another essential difference, of course, is that flying is much, much more regulated than sailing and, at it's most basic level, it is more expensive. At the higher levels there is little difference in cost. Many of my sailing friends spend far more on their sailing than I do on flying, although they probably spend more time enjoying it.

I wonder though, if a large, local group of selfless fliers got together to start a sailing type of club with the aim of providing a range of flying at the lowest possible cost, that it would change the face of GA flying. In my day, many gliding clubs operated on this basis and probably still do. Power flying should be run in the same way. Of course it could only do that if the CAA changed the rules for instructors so that, like gliding and sailing, you would then have the true club instructor. Clubs could then offer the whole range of power flying from w/shift microlights to IMC.

Perhaps the biggest contribution we can make toward preserving GA is to ruthlessly lobby the CAA to change the rules for flying instruction in this country.

[IO540]

I think to suggest what can be done in such a hypothetical situation (starting a flying club) one needs to see the breakdown of costs in aircraft ownership.

I am not one to readily defend the CAA and its ex RAF navigator old fart approach to everything, or pinching FAA regs and blatently gold plating them without any supporting evidence whatever (actually all of Europe does that) but the cost of regulation is not the major problem here. Most of the cost is in running old wreckage almost into - but not quite into - the ground, and poor asset utilisation.

Certainly, if one could train on any airfield, and could train in what the UK calls Permit types, that would probably halve the cost of doing a PPL.

If a PPL could do remunerated training that would improve the standard of training but would not affect the cost, IMHO.

Of course the existing flight training industry would go berserk and you can be 100% sure they are lobbying to the CAA right this moment to try to prevent this ever happening. This (vested interests) is probably the biggest obstacle.

Sailing is a socially different activity - hard to compare with flying. We have been here before and I got jumped on massively for saying this, but most people choose their leisure activities quite deliberately (if not consciously so) for a specific return.

A lot of men go into a certain activity for the chance of meeting women. Women do that too (to meet men) but usually in a far less overtly deliberate manner. Now, if a certain activity has few women (for whatever reason) then a huge section of the male population won't touch it with a 20ft bargepole. The only men who will go in there are ones who prefer their own company, who like to drink a lot in similar company, or ones who are already sorted out with a woman, and an understanding one at that. Or perhaps ones who are married but the marriage is empty. Look around your local flying club....

Now, how many women want to go anywhere near a scene like that?

If one could break this vicious circle then a lot more money would come into GA.

At this point, al the low budget pilots will jump on me, but don't bother, I have a thick skin, and need it too.

An individual can get out of this situation by investing a huge amount of time and money on getting license privileges and a nice aircraft. He will then have no trouble at all attracting passengers for trips away. But this is a serious long haul project - I know because I have done it, and I know a few others who have done likewise. In sailing, achieving something comparable is relatively trivial - even though sailing has close to zero utility value (how long does it take to drive a reasonably compact gin palace to say La Rochelle?? 2 days, at a cost of 4 figures in fuel).

To do something collectively useful, the way to do it is to set up a club which welcomes experienced pilots. As Bose-X so correctly points out, most schools don't want "sorted out" pilots anywhere near the place. They supposedly usurp instructors' authority (haha...), they might even accept money from students who should damn well be spending all their money on "proper lessons" with "proper instructors". But this is essential in dragging a fresh PPL holder away from his really basic training, to a stage where he/she can get something valuable out of it.

Then one needs facilities to get together, plan trips and outings. Plus modern and clean planes which Mrs Bloggs will get into without breaking off her fingernails (forget a Piper or a Cessna then).

Just some random thoughts.

[Say again s l o w l y]

The major problem with growing anything in GA in this country , is the cost. Basically PPL's are all too stingy to pay a realistic rate for an a/c or Instructor!;)

We would all love to have spanking new machines and state of the art facilities, but the simple fact is that these cost alot of money and the margins are so tight that it is difficult to even break even, let alone invest in "toys".

I agree wholeheartedly in IO's sentiments however, especially in relation to sailing. I have been around boats my whole life and the money people spend on these is phenomenal. Your average PPL is an impoverished pauper in comparison. You may all be lovely people, but you can't run a business on that alone!

There shouldn't be a them and us argument here (though I fear it is inevitable) since there is space for all, from bimbling about in a Currie Wot, to blasting around Europe in a turbo prop, glass-panelled hot ship.

The club we are building has been designed from the start to try and bring everyone together, the FI's, students are the easy bit, but offering long term support for PPL members is the cornerstone of the plan. It is done appallingly badly most of the time and to me it is no surprise that most people drop out of flying in such a short space of time. It is a travesty and something we should all be ashamed of in this business, but with no support, limited opportunities to fly, lack of any real practical use because of the obscene costs and we get to the situation where people lose motivation and then confidence and before long they start to drift away.
This is all before we even talk about the pressures from home and the money issue.

Big sailing/yacht clubs are good places to start for inspiration, they have a mix of amateurs and professionals, but the amateurs take the lead in organising events, races, trips etc. whilst the Pro's do the training and keep everyone on track and stop the inevitable fights, hissy fits and temper tantrums that you inevitably find in testosterone fuelled environments.

A good social scene is vital and having events and getting whole families involved is critical. After all, if your wife and kid's start complaining, let's face it, the end of your career in aviation is getting closer!

[kevmusic]

Justiciar, thank you for a lucid, balanced and unemotive post. In fact, I thank everybody for their contributions to my question; but you, J., have got to the point in a very fair way. Despite my love of 'engaging with history' I can accept the pragmatism of such a view now, and am minded to explore the possible use of GPS with my instructor when I restart my PPL next year. You have brought into focus many of the points made by 10540 and others.

Things have settled down somewhat now, and we're getting some interesting thoughts and answers. Much of it is over my head, of course, but I hope to be up to speed in a year or two!

To those who thought I was winding up 10540 in some way, or setting him up for people to have a pop at him - let me assure you nothing could be further from the truth.

Kev.

[IO540]

kevmusic - don't worry about it :)

S.A.S. - Everybody can and should co-exist; just look in the USA, where you find rag and tube types and IFR tourers alongside, with no apparent rivalry. The difference is that they have an overall level of activity high enough to pay for the whole shop. Within the scene, there is cross subsidy from frequent flyers to infrequent flyers.

I still maintain (and we have been here before, too) that while individuals in UK GA are generally tight as the proverbial, there is a lot of money around which could be attracted, with a suitable product, well marketed. The problem is that nearly everybody already playing inside will regard such an effort with utmost ("we are going to be priced out") suspicion.

[Say again s l o w l y]

IO, You're right in that there is a lot of money that we aren't tapping into, the problem is that very few are willing to invest the large sums needed to create such a product.

The risk is very large and since I don't have the spare couple of million to throw at it, we have to rely on outside investment. When I've mentioned the phrase aviation to potential investors before, they've run a mile as the percieved risk is too great.

When it comes to marketing, a certain company not a million miles from us, tried doing everything from infomercials on Sky all the way to roadside hoardings. It worked in that they got very busy, but they are now in a deep, deep financial hole as there is no way they would ever recoup these costs. I think they have written off these costs, but most of us simply couldn't or wouldn't be able to justify expenses like that.

So we started small and are growing slowly, eventually we'll get there, but there really is less money about and more cost, than I had ever realised. Unless you fancy chucking some cash our way?!!!!;)

Though this is no excuse for tatty a/c.

[foxmoth]

he problem is that very few are willing to invest the large sums needed to create such a product.

Well don't we all know how to make a small fortune in aviation - start with a large one.:eek:

[IO540]

Foxmoth - I don't actually believe that phrase is true.

Look at a GNS430: parts cost about £300, and the selling price is what?? Even allowing the for avionics shop getting -25% off, and the UK disti/importer (say, Adams Aviation) getting another -30%, this is a damn nice line. Even in my own electronics manufacturing business I have to make do with gross margins of "only" 75% and I achieve that by selling mostly direct.

The reason so many people lose money in this business is because most of the honest ones could not run a party in a brewery, and the less than honest ones.....

[Justiciar]

Keymusic:

Thank you for those kind words:ok: Coming back to your original post, basic skills of the sort exhibited by our WWII pilots are a key part of the safe enjoyment of flying. Guys like the Lysander pilots showed the highest degree of airmanship and skill in finding their way to the target with next to nothing other than their own wits to help them. That spirit is a crucial part of aviation in this country.

We are the ambassadors for flying, every one of us. I can recall the enthusiasm of other pilots when I started to learn as well as the willingness to share that knowledge and welcome the newcomer. That is so important in bringing new people in. It is down to us to show that there is a world beyond the flying school.

[172driver]

Wow - away from Prune for a few days and war has broken out ;)

Seriously - I think I'd second IO540 here. There is, in fact, a training syllabus that comes close to what he (and others like myself) would like to see - it's called FAA PPL. This not only teaches you the basics of flight (manual E6B and all), but also radio navigation, night flight and (depending of course to a degree on where you train) flying 'in the system', in other words dealing with ATC. Where I think it is lacking (or was - this may have changed by now, my own experiences date from the later 90s) is the teaching of GPS navigation. I also like the requirement to demonstrate the use of everything installed in your a/c during a checkride.

Now donning flak jacket and helmet.......

[IO540]

Whether GPS is covered in the FAA PPL depends on which school you turn up at. If they have GPS installed (which increasingly they do; typically a GNS430 but a few have glass cockpits) then you will have to learn it.

And as you say you potentially have to show you can work everything in the panel on the checkride. The examiner is entitled to require that. Nowadays he might let you off doing NDB work (if you are doing your IR) but no way will you get let off the GPS.

[Fuji Abound]

WR

Reminds me of the story about the old instructor who would demonstrate to the student that they were ready to fly solo by throwing the wood stick out the canopy (in the days on some types it was removable) during a touch and go.

The problem was when some wag took a spare stick with him, and proceeded to throw his stick out also (pretending that he thought the instructor wanted him to demonstrate he could copy his actions).

The instructor of course now thought they were both stickless - I guess he never tried that trick again :D .