Has pilot training got its knickers in a twist?

[Wingsward]

Hi,

My first post on here, so please be kind :)

I've been thinking for a while about pursuing my childhood ambition of becoming a professional pilot.
I would prefer to fly business jets rather than airline work.

I've been doing a lot of research about pilot training in general (including reading threads on pprune) as well as research on what's offered by various schools.

I may have got the wrong end of the stick here, but I'm sad to say the picture that has been painted by the various sources I have consulted isn't a pretty one.

Firstly, other than price, I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between the likes of OAA and CTC compared with BCFT, Stapleford and others.
Is there any meaningful difference, or do some schools simply have better marketing departments than others...?

Secondly, and I do not profess to have the experience to pass judgement on this, but what flying schools themselves are saying about the MPL seems to be totally different to what others are saying!
The MPL seems is being hailed as a revolution by flying schools offering the license, but as far as I understand serious concerns are being raised?
What's the truth?

While doing some research on MPL programmes, I came across articles such as the flightglobal article on "airline pilot training revolution needed" (search it on google).

Having read articles such as the one mentioned above, am I right in thinking that there a serious problem with the ATPL, which the MPL license has failed to rectify?
It talks about pilots not being taught the skills they need during training.
Is the quality of training a serious problem that other users of this forum recognise? There seems to be quite a lot written about it online!

I wanted to find some information about becoming a pilot, but I was surprised by just how opaque the industry and some of the flying schools can be.

Would somebody care to give me a (preferably brief!) overview of what's going on with professional pilot training?

Thank you.

[sapperkenno]

Professional pilot training is a mess, in simple terms. All the big schools run a sausage factory type scheme taking people off the streets, with a large wad of their (or their parents) cash, and spit them out of the other end into a job flying a jet, on poor terms and conditions. The good thing is these kids are rather naive and don't know much better, and the airlines get a cookie cutter bod that follows procedures and can sit in the right hand seat and do the job the airlines want - which is great for the most part.

However, in light of recent incidents, and the simple fact that a slick training system can never make up for real world experience gained over a couple of thousand hours of flying as PIC, learning your craft and making command decisions... many within the industry are suggesting that modular people, who have done the hard yards and built up experience "properly" instead of prostituting themselves to get on a jet, make a better thinking pilot when things go wrong.

The MPL just reduces the training costs/duration and waters it down even more. In all fairness, you could probably train somebody to fly a modern airliner in a matter of weeks and the rest they would pick up on the job. Look at that reality program doing the rounds of the dutch bloke (I think) who they trained up on a 738 and had him flying circuits in it within a month... Contrast that with the MyTravel (airline may be wrong, but someone will link to it no doubt) airbus that a former CTC FO smashed into the runway at one of the greek islands, causing structural damage, and when they went back through his training records he'd been crap all along, but CTC had happily kept taking his money and feeding him through tests until he passed, then the airline had allowed him to buy 500 hours of flying with fare paying passengers. A lot of people despise CTC, and you can understand both sides of the arguments. I'm very anti, and my main problem is the lack of skill/interest that many of their students seem to possess, and in all fairness a bit of jealousy that I've been doing things the hard way working as an FI and flying corporate among other none aviation jobs, and never expected to just turn up and jump into an airliner. Only a few months ago, I passed my first lot of EASA ATPL exams, which I've been studying for in my own time, and is one of the many hoops to jump through to "covert" my FAA professional qualifications to EASA... numerous other exam candidates, who were at the exam venue, from the CTC in-house ATPL theory course were there doing resits! So they were getting spoonfed ATPL theory 5 days a week in a classroom, yet some of them still weren't able to pass. :rolleyes: Things like this wind me up, and the general arrogance hearing them talking about what type ratings they were going to do after, and how they would turn down an offer of 757 at Jet2 in favour of 738 somewhere as it wasn't a "dying type"... like the airlines owe them a favour.

It's a funny carry on. I certainly think corporate work is a bit more free thinking and requires a more versatile character to adapt to the nature of the work. Whereas airlines offer a bit more job security, with a lot more of the same old same old day after day and just being another number.

[Alex Whittingham]

Hi Wingsward, welcome to PPRuNe. I'll leave others to comment on the marketing and price differences between schools but here is my perspective on the MPL.

It was first introduced by ICAO to address the argument that the ATPL courses produced people reasonably well qualified to fly light piston singles and twins but not adequately prepared to act as co-pilots in modern airliners. ICAO say: "The objective behind the Multi-crew Pilot Licence is to introduce an alternative pathway for ab-initio student pilots to achieve the necessary competencies to become highly effective, efficient, and safe operators of a modern commercial air transport category aeroplane through the successful completion of a seamless competency-based training programme leading to the acquisition of an aeroplane type rating, which satisfies the regulatory requirements to commence line operations indoctrination training with a specific airline." This is expanded by a useful IATA/IFALPA discussion document (https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/ops-infra/itqi/Documents/guidance-material-and-best-practices-for-mpl-implementation.pdf) which gives detailed definitions and summarises their view of the state of play.

The (original) key aims were competency based training, rather than the requirement to do a certain number of hours, concentration on the multi-crew environment and exposure to relevant new technology. Emphasis was also placed on the importance of aptitude testing.

When it was introduced the JAA, the precurser of EASA, IMHO failed at the first hurdle. We (Bristol Groundschool and Oxford at least) made representations to the JAA that they should not insist on a full 750 hour course for groundschool, nor insist on passing the existing ATPL exams but rather let us design theory courses that were relevant, were delivered throughout the training as flying experience increased and based on the concept of continuous internal testing. In that way the cadets would be taught basic met, for instance, in the very early stages and build up to microburst training and operational aspects in the sim phase. This is completely consistent with ICAO's expressed intentions (page 36 of the IATA document). The JAA, however, said no, and MPL candidates still have to do 750 hours of ground training and take the full ATPL exams. Commercial reasons make most ATOs teach them all this before they have even seen an aircraft, something else that is contrary to the original intentions.

The flying aspects of the course have, from an outsider's view, been more successful although plans to operate as multi crew in twins like the DA42 pretty much from the start have never gelled and MPL courses have tended to follow a more traditional single pilot path until phase 4, or occasionally phase 3 of the training.

From a commercial point of view, integrated ATOs realised early on that the MPL could cost less than an integrated ATPL to deliver, particularly if the economies of early ATPL theory, single engine pistons and fair weather bases (eg Arizona) were used. In my mind (and IATA's) these reduce the effectiveness of the original concept but they certainly add to the profit. The requirement to work with a specific airline in the later stages of the course also meant that candidates had to be effectively tied in to an airline, and this made the courses very marketable, as few 'tagged' places are available on normal integrated courses. From the airline's point of view the candidates are not only trained to their procedures, but are also effectively tied employees for longer than they otherwise would be, because a pilot holding an MPL license on the A319, for instance, cannot move as readily to that B737 job with BA as a CPL holder. The number of places on MPL courses are, however, usually small because airlines don't want to commit to large numbers a year plus in advance, so the ATOs tend to market the MPLs as a 'premium product' and offer standard 'untagged' integrated courses to those who are not selected.

The importance aptitude testing is also, in my view, overplayed by those with commercial interests. Yes, aptitude testing can filter out the really unsuitable but, for most pilots, it is more of an indicator whether training will be completed in the minimum time or a bit more. When an ATO has 4000 applicants and takes the top 15 you can bet they are going to be good. When the concept starts to fail is when the ATOs get greedy and lower the input standards, still no-one 'fails' the courses because they have already paid and the ATOs want to keep the money, and the integrated hold pools fill up with the 'not so goods'. The airline recruiters know when the standards are falling.

In summary, then, if you can get tagged on an MPL course at a respectable ATO like CAE, CTC or FTE you have done well and should (all things being equal) progress smoothly to airline employment. Don't expect the MPL to be the revolution it might have been, you will find it has been watered down by poor regulatory decisions and economics to effectively become a modified integrated course.

[Wingsward]

Thanks for your honest replies guys, I really do appreciate it.

But your replies effectively confirm what I've read elsewhere: that ATPL programmes offered by various schools around the country are failing to deliver pilots who have the necessary skills, and the MPL has failed to rectify this in part because it's not being implemented properly by flying schools offering the MPL.
The professional flying schools are running a sausage system in any case, and any monkey can into the right seat as long as they have enough money to throw at it.

:yuk:

That's the impression I'm getting, is it inaccurate in any way?

Innocent question, but if the ATPL programmes offered by many schools are producing pilots with a serious 'skill deficit', why were changes not made decades ago?

Serious question, but other than the difficulty finding a job when you have the bit of paper saying you can fly, the impression I'm getting is that there isn't a course worth applying for (at least with the so called 'big name' flying schools)?
Realistically where does all of this leave ambitious hopefuls like me? :ugh:

[sapperkenno]

Realistically where does all of this leave ambitious hopefuls like me?

I would say for about the last year, up to this moment in time (and hopefully for a good year or so to come), if you had/have an EASA CPL/MEIR with ATPL theory passes, and a CRM course done... in a very good position!

I know of loads of people moving up the ladder from instructing backgrounds, and it really seems like everyone is getting airline/freight jobs at the moment. Here in the Yorkshire area I've seen people get taken on by Jet2, Ryanair, FlyBe, DHL and Eastern Airways in recent months. I know of others who thought they were stuck at West Atlantic and Eastern for life, jumping ship to Monarch and Jet2, so plenty of movement. No sign of things letting up yet either.

A rather nice overview there from Alex too. Would be nice if some of the larger training establishments also gave numbers of their former alumni who haven't yet found a job... I know of at least 3 former Oxford bod's coming crying to local ATOs wanting an SEP rating so they can at least try and spend some more money (after the 80 odd thousand pounds they already had to get their guaranteed airline job but never got a sniff of a placement or holding pool) adding an FI rating to try and earn a living in aviation!

[Wingsward]

I haven't got any flying qualifications yet, so I very much fall into the category of an ambitious hopeful taking a look at what's on offer.

So are there any courses worth registering for?
The impression I get is that ATPL's don't give you the skills you need, and the MPL is worse but is at least attached to an airline.
Then there's the question of whether there's actually a difference between the likes of CTC and OAA compared with BCFT, stapleford and others. Is it realistically just the price you pay?

Regardless, I'm not prepared to be a sucker for the corporate flying schools or the airlines.

I feel that I've been given quite a negative view of it all by all the sources I've consulted :(

[Alex Whittingham]

I don't think its fair to say that ATOs are not delivering the pilots with the skills required, most of the airlines seem perefectly happy with them. You will find plenty of articles suggesting the contrary and that the industry is in a training crisis but they too are usually written by someone trying to pitch a product. Most of the big ATOs do deliver a perfectly reasonable output, its just not quite as good as they would have you believe, the success rates are not really as good as they suggest and above all, they are in it to make money, not to be your mate. I'm not privy to their accounts but I would be surprised if they had not driven the marginal cost of delivering an integrated ATPL below £40K, the rest is profit, and to pay for the very very extensive marketing required to attract the young hopefuls in. The real crisis is yet to come, not with training quality, but with the amount of debt these pilots carry. Integrated training is badly overpriced.

[paco]

Not much to add to Alex's comments - just don't get me started on how it has all been implemented! :)

To answer Wingsward, for the future (after 2018, due to the legal situation), EASA is well aware that the industry needs something better as an end product and, as far as an Authority can, they are changing the syllabuses and eventually the questions to reflect this. There is a new subject, for example, (LO 100) dealing with mental arithmetic, with no calculators allowed.

Question writers have also been asked to frame their questions at a much higher level.

Phil

[Wingsward]

Thanks for that insight Phil.

So post 2018, the commercial schools will have to deliver a revised syllabus, including a revised theoretical syllabus?

Is this simply EASA's stated intention or is there any robust information about what the new framework will look like?

Is it a new type of course entirely or just an iteration of the ATPL or MPL?

Also, I take it that the "question writers" are aviation authorities rather than the flying schools themselves?
To what extent do the flying schools actually influence their courses, or is Oxford's ATPL pretty much the same as BCFT's for example?
The reason I ask is because I presume the flying schools will simply have a new syllabus handed down to them in 2018 as oppose to having to design their own new course to comply with legislation?

[parkfell]

Just picking up on something Alex said in post#3 that it is more difficult to move on to a new employer/type as a CPL (MPL) holder.

I don't think that this is necessarily correct. No more difficult than any other "normal" CPL holder. Once the licence is issued with the initial MP type rating, the MPL training phase is complete. Normal line training now follows.

All that is now necessary for a new ac would be for that type rating course to be successfully completed. And unlike the initial type rating the TRIs / TREs do not need to be qualified as a MPL instructor.

With the necessary experience gained, the ATPL can be issued in due course.

The only issue would be if say a FI rating was ever contemplated due to lack of single pilot experience at licence issue stage.

What I would like to know is why a minimum of 12 T/Os and landings are required for the base training as oppose to the normal six. It has been suggested that the draft version had 12 ( a number plucked from the sky) and when the final approved version appeared they "forgot" to change it to six? What is the justification for this? They have more experience of heavier ac than those following the traditional route.
This adds considerable cost, and is in my view unnecessary. If more than six circuits are required, so be it.

[paco]

Hi Wingsward - to answer your questions.....

The "new" syllabus in the shape of new LOs should be issued by March this year for discussion. They are certainly leaner and meaner, but a lot of new stuff has been added as well, on to what we have now, so that we are not teaching jet pilots to fly Sopwith Camels. We have tried to get away from the "we know you are going to drive a car but just in case you ever drive a truck, have this question" syndrome (I say "we" because I am on the rulemaking committee, along with KLM, Lufthansa, Ryanair, Aer Lingus, etc., so there was a broad spectrum of opinion, and from native English speakers).

Because it is hard law, it will take some time to shove it through, but I'm sure the new LOs will be favourably received, especially on the helicopter side, which has been long neglected.

Those areas that have been flagged for alteration/deletion will have no more new questions written until then, and 1500 new questions per year will be written for the remaining subjects.

The big difference is that a lot of the subjects will have been marked as "underpinning knowledge", or something so basic it is not worth wasting a question on. Instead, questions will be framed on the assumption that the said facts are known anyway.

The question writers are people from the industry, like myself (another hat) - the technical reviewers, however, will be from local authorities, which can be a problem because some of them haven't a clue.

All the schools have to follow the basic learning objectives, so in that sense they will be much of a muchness - the difference will be in presentation (easily readable notes, graphics, etc) and how deeply they go into the subject - for example, we are always aware that the technical interview is a lot more important, which is where we teach to. The problem is that there is hardly any guidance in the LOs about how deeply to treat each subject - it's just luck as to whether the question writers know what they are doing, and no schoool I know has any confidence in the question bank as it now stands.

For example, the LOs might require a broad knowledge of malaria (fair enough), but some idiot question writer will show off and do a question on a very obscure sub-species such as Dingue Fever. Or there's the Human Factors questions which have been based on non-standardmarshmalllow pop psychology books such as the Ten Minute Manager.

I have (rather forcibly) stated that altering the LOs is one thing, but unless somebody with the right experience sits through and edits the question bank at source, much of it will be wasted.

To answer your question, though, he schools will all have to design their own courses, provided the LOs are covered.

Lastly, it has been proposed that the number of attempts for each subject be reduced to two.

Phil

[Wingsward]

Interesting stuff Phil, thanks for your input.

So the learning objectives are being redefined, presumably to encourage flying schools to properly implement CBT (think MPL, as above).
Any info on this anywhere that is likely to satisfy my curiosity?

I have read many posts from different people saying that the theory syllabus needs updating.
I am qualified somewhat to comment on this as I have some experience of teaching, whereas many of the people responsible for teaching the theory and defining the requirements clearly do not.

There shouldn't be a question bank in my opinion, rather an especially prepared exam each time (easy to implement, trust me), just like exam boards operate.

P.S. the concept of 'competency based training' is an old concept in professional teaching, but a totally new concept in aviation.
Tells you something lol!

[paco]

I've been into CBT ever since programmed learning and laserdiscs (remember them?) and never really thought it as good as people make out, although I do recognise that it has its place in certain areas. Similarly with the use of colour - a clear black and white image is often way superior to colour, which again has its place (look at the Jeppesen/Peters material to see what I mean).

I hear that a lot of schools have gone back to chalk and talk, or at least reduced the CBT content, which was originally used to reduce instructor salaries.

You hit the nail on the head with your comments about people who define the requirements. I have heard that the only country that sent actual aviators to the original meetings was the UK. I must say it doesn't surprise me at all.

Phil

[Wingsward]

Schools are definitely in favour of 'talk and chalk' from my experience, and other 'trendy' techniques tend to dilute the LO in any case.
That said, there is a move for teachers to spend less time talking and for students to spend more time practising, the theory being that people learn by doing not watching.

CBT is starting to be implemented quite well, although there were a few teething problems initially.

Initially, schools and heads of departments assumed that in order to increase understanding students must simply practice more.
So they still had the same amount of work to do, and the course wasn't presented in a different way, but students simply did more questions on a certain topic in order to practice.

What people realised however is that this approach wasn't helping because it wasn't improving understanding, but encouraging learning from rote and teaching to the exam.

So what's happening is that firstly new syllabi are being introduced for different subjects with less content, and many 'stand alone' topics which don't fit in with the 'flow' of the syllabus are being removed.
Then teachers are being encouraged to teach in a way that makes logical sense, i.e. ensuring that the students have a grasp of fundamentals, and clearly building on the fundamentals as we advance through the course.

It's very good and students tend to prefer it.

CBT can be good, when implemented properly. Trouble is many people have a vague idea what the aims of CBT are but no clue about how to properly deliver a CBT structured course.

Part of the problem was that the government seemed to believe that the more you teach the better, they didn't take into account how relevant the material is, or how the volume of work effects the students ability to understand because of time constraints.

No doubt you can draw parallels with aviation.

[B61]

After the vote in June when we will vote to leave the EU, will all of the EASA nonsense thought up by non-flyers end and we can just adopt our own UK system ?

So far as as I am aware, you cannot be in EASA if you are non-EU, so there is no choice.

[Alex Whittingham]

There are a couple of EASA but non EU states, Iceland, Lichenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Overall EASA is IMHO a massive improvement on its predecessors. The big issue with Paco's rewriting of the ATPL learning objectives and exams is that history suggests that, despite the best intentions, the system will mess it up initially, and then slowly improve it to a workable level. Question banks are in my view regrettable but necessary, because there are so many questions so badly written, and so loosely referenceable to equally badly written LOs, that without them you wouldn't stand a chance. They stand as an indictment to one area where EASA have not done well. If the ATPL exams were audited by Ofqual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofqual), as I think they certainly should be, they would have a fit.

[Wingsward]

Hi B61,

To be fair I don't think the problem is the contribution from non-flyers.
The problem by the sound of things is that the people who are contributing are experts in very little.

Perfect example is what me and Phil were talking about above.
Part of the reason the theoretical part of the syllabus is in a bit of a pickle is because only aviators are contributing to its development (in the UK at least).
But aviators typically have no teaching experience whatsoever.

It strikes me that being a flyer may make one conversant with the current situation (whatever it is), but not necessarily better placed to offer solutions compared with anybody else.

Just my opinion :ok:

[Wingsward]

ATPL exams audited by ofqual.
Very interesting idea and I know precisely what one would require in order to achieve this as I have contacts at ofqual.

BUT, they would presumably still need approving by the CAA/EASA?
Would a flying school be 'allowed' to break away from the current system in this way?

[paco]

We are assuming that ofqual would know about flying requirements, so back to square one. Only a working pilot (or one who has worked) would know whether knowledge of the function of an SN-Wohler curve is useful or not in daily working life. Doesn't matter if you know how to convey that info to a student :)

I am not talking about whether the questions are factually correct (20% of the database is wrong), or have no mistakes or are even relevant. It's really whether they follow the LOs in the first place, and don't produce surprises for schools and students when it comes to taking the exams.

As Alex hints at - you cannot currently pass the exams on knowledge alone. Regrettably, but necessarily, you must give a nod to the question banks. As a result, high pass marks are actually suspicious rather than an indicator of excellence.

phil

[Wingsward]

The role of Ofqual isn't to know about the subjects for which they regulate exams.

They do not need to know about any of the academic or vocational qualifications which they regulate.
Ofqual is there more to enforce academic and operational standards in terms of how courses are organised, conducted and examined.

As an example, you could start an exam board quite easily in principle and decide to offer a new GCSE, lets say in law, economics or philosophy.
Ofqual would regulate you as an exam board in the way described above.

Similarly, you could in principle submit a flying course to be regulated as a vocational qualification.

The question is that if you decided to take a different approach to the theoretical aspect of the course, how would the CAA and EASA react to this?

[Wingsward]

Professional pilot training is a mess, in simple terms. All the big schools run a sausage factory type scheme taking people off the streets, with a large wad of their (or their parents) cash, and spit them out of the other end into a job flying a jet, on poor terms and conditions. The good thing is these kids are rather naive and don't know much better, and the airlines get a cookie cutter bod that follows procedures and can sit in the right hand seat and do the job the airlines want - which is great for the most part.

However, in light of recent incidents, and the simple fact that a slick training system can never make up for real world experience gained over a couple of thousand hours of flying as PIC, learning your craft and making command decisions... many within the industry are suggesting that modular people, who have done the hard yards and built up experience "properly" instead of prostituting themselves to get on a jet, make a better thinking pilot when things go wrong.

The MPL just reduces the training costs/duration and waters it down even more. In all fairness, you could probably train somebody to fly a modern airliner in a matter of weeks and the rest they would pick up on the job. Look at that reality program doing the rounds of the dutch bloke (I think) who they trained up on a 738 and had him flying circuits in it within a month... Contrast that with the MyTravel (airline may be wrong, but someone will link to it no doubt) airbus that a former CTC FO smashed into the runway at one of the greek islands, causing structural damage, and when they went back through his training records he'd been crap all along, but CTC had happily kept taking his money and feeding him through tests until he passed, then the airline had allowed him to buy 500 hours of flying with fare paying passengers. A lot of people despise CTC, and you can understand both sides of the arguments. I'm very anti, and my main problem is the lack of skill/interest that many of their students seem to possess, and in all fairness a bit of jealousy that I've been doing things the hard way working as an FI and flying corporate among other none aviation jobs, and never expected to just turn up and jump into an airliner. Only a few months ago, I passed my first lot of EASA ATPL exams, which I've been studying for in my own time, and is one of the many hoops to jump through to "covert" my FAA professional qualifications to EASA... numerous other exam candidates, who were at the exam venue, from the CTC in-house ATPL theory course were there doing resits! So they were getting spoonfed ATPL theory 5 days a week in a classroom, yet some of them still weren't able to pass. :rolleyes: Things like this wind me up, and the general arrogance hearing them talking about what type ratings they were going to do after, and how they would turn down an offer of 757 at Jet2 in favour of 738 somewhere as it wasn't a "dying type"... like the airlines owe them a favour.

It's a funny carry on. I certainly think corporate work is a bit more free thinking and requires a more versatile character to adapt to the nature of the work. Whereas airlines offer a bit more job security, with a lot more of the same old same old day after day and just being another number.

Sorry about the late reply to your post.

There has been a lot said about the state of pilot training in various articles (e.g. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airline-pilot-training-revolution-needed-363801/)
Is this 'sensationalism', or is there a real issue here.

I've heard rumours that some of the hiring managers are shocked by the low quality of candidates coming through the system. But as I say, just rumours...

What's the solution though?
In the same way as learning to drive, nothing trumps experience. But what can be done to the training system to make pilots better prepared for line work?
Is it raw flying skills purely, or something else?

[parkfell]

CAE Oxford have made a wise decision to reequip with Piper.

Basic skills need to be mastered as part of the CPL/IR course. Without that fundamental skill gained, any future flying is build on quick sand.
"can you select an attitude and maintain it, and TRIM?" The first 20 hours or so of flying is so important.

With this sound foundation, the multi-crew training can commence.

[paco]

Quite agree. Aren't L3 going over to Piper now as well as opposed to the DA 42?

[parkfell]

The DA42 has the advantage of using AVTUR and uses in the region of 50% less/hr v. Senaca.
In round terms 25% per hour in terms of fuel costs. Big smile on the faces of the beancounters.
Annual maintenance costs can prove to be expensive. Their construction material is modern, but how robust are they with the punishing nature of training?
FTEs PA28s first operated by British Aerospace at Prestwick from1988 are still used at Jerez for the SE phase. An ideal platform for basic training.

As a training platform the DA42 is ideal for ME PPL IR training. Easy to fly. Once qualified on type, put your golf clubs in the back, fly for an hour. Land. Golf, then RTB.
To quote an experienced ME FI from one of the "Big 3" : 'my old Mum could pass her IR on the DA42'.

Piper will be more demanding to fly and require a higher level of basic skill which is necessary for the next phases of training.
The DA42 can mask shortcomings. Piper is far less likely to do so.

Set the ATTITUDE AND TRIM