Is pilot training mostly "the blind leading the blind"?

[RichardJones]

Originally Posted by megan

If it's the same YT that I watched the chap is a 747 Captain. Unfortunately you see many who don't know how to strap in with a four or five point harness, you'd think it would be the very first lesson given to a new student, or a passenger.

Indeed. This begs the question, what other basic have not been taught?
Admittedly, none of us know it all. However there is a lot not taught in basic training. VFR and IFR.
One of the root causes, is the instructors are not retained. Why? Because the money ain't there.
My first job was an instructor. Didn't know much about flying and no experience. I enjoyed trying to pass on what little I did
Here is my suggestion, for what it's worth.
- Get a CFI who has some "real world experience " and able too teach and pay him/ her a decent salary. They in turn will teach the other instructors most what needs to be taught.
- Give the young instructors some exposure too tailwheel/ conventional U/G aircraft handling. That way they will learn the basics of using their feet near the ground and pass it on. The RUDDERS are not foot rests.
Their is no substitute for experience. Time in the air
The B747, is the easiest Heavy A/C I have flown. If not the easiest.
A Learjet 20 or 30 series, for example, you need to be "on the ball". Same goes for a C180/185 or a Piper Cub.
The heavier the A/C are, the easier they are too fly. IMHO.

[Manwell]

I basically agree, Richard, however, I was a CFI with real world experience, and the industry didn't like being taught how to fly after they'd already qualified for a license and instructor rating, especially those with lots of experience.

I once had to train Qantas Flight Engineers who were being retrained as pilots after the 747 Classic was retired, and one old chap really didn't like the idea of throwing an aircraft around the sky in a Decathlon. The only reason he did do it was because he had to, Qantas were paying, and I wouldn't accept his refusal, despite him being older and more experienced than I.

It ended well though. Once we'd finished, he'd appreciated the training and thanked me for it.

[RichardJones]

You Tube

A picture "speaks a 1000 words."
I was told by the Chief pilot of a European Major carrier, flying skills are well down on the list of priorities for their pilots. Has it ever been any different in recent times?

[Manwell]

I wouldn't be surprised, Richard. Airlines want robots, not pilots, and the funny thing is that many of these robots are convinced they're pilots.

[jet 1234]

I found this site to be a huge source of knowledge and information. Much of it was just simple things about how to think about flying or examples of problems and solutions rather than specific flying techniques, but that is what a text based forum is always going to be best at.

[Pilot DAR]

What I have seen over the two generations I have been flying, is that flight training in the '60's and early '70's was often pilots who had retired from other pilot roles, (some from WW2), who took on instructing as a segue toward retirement - these pilots (both genders, I observed) had awesome pilot experience, and "learned to be instructors. I see now, instructors who take this role on first out of training, and bring youth and eagerness, but have yet to gain the broad experience. I have flown with many "newer" instructors, and empathize with how difficult it is for them to build this wealth of broad experience, from their own learning path, where the next step is the circuit again, rather than a more demanding, skill and decision making building environment.

You can't blame an instructor for not having experience, but you can blame a system, and its clients, for accepting a reduction in instructor experience. Students have to be willing to pay for the experience they want to learn from. When I taught advanced single engine, the rate I was charged at was four times what a line instructor was being charged at. Many people happily paid the more costly rate, as they knew it was my "in the bush" experience that they were paying for with the training. When I was asked to be a line instructor, I could just not mount the necessary interest for the pay offered. And there was no way that the school could charge my out to ab initio students at the "advanced" rate. When I took helicopter training, I sought out the grey haired instructors, and it was so worth it! I happily paid their rate, it was worth every penny!

[Manwell]

Since this thread seems to have stalled, here's a question to ponder. Is the accepted syllabus of training, particularly during the ab initio phase, structured to provide a sound foundation for further development, or could it be improved? From memory, the way pilot training is taught today is from the second world war, when the objective was to get pilots qualified on instruments asap, rather than achieving mastery. Most would have had to work that bit out for themselves if they managed to survive their first few flights.

[Pilot DAR]

[QUOTE]the way pilot training is taught today is from the second world war, when the objective was to get pilots qualified on instruments asap, rather than achieving mastery./[QUOTE]

Certainly my personal perspective on primary flight training is just about a half century old, but I can say that proficiency flying on instruments was hardly a training objective. Training was 90% eyes out, and if there was an apparent over reliance on instruments (chasing the airspeed on final approach), a suction cup soap holder would appear from the instructor's pocket, and "fail" the airspeed indicator for the rest of the hour. I recall passing my PPL with zero training as to what a VOR (a couple in the fleet had them) an ADF (none had them), nor transponder (none had them) even did, much less how to use them. It was hands and feet proficiency, with map reading, a flight log and watch for navigation.

Pre GPS days, these "manual navigation skills served me well flying in parts of the world (central Canada and east Africa) where there were no effective radio nav aids over great distances at lower altitudes. And, more recently crossing central Saskatchewan on a scuzzy day VFR, when all three GPS's aboard would not navigate for more than an hour! I picked up an airplane new to me a few weeks ago, to fly home, and yes, it has a GPS, but ancient would be a good way to describe it, "functional" wold not! No matter, old training came back to me!

The horse is out of the barn on avionics now. Like doing simple math on paper, navigating from paper is history. After flying hundreds of hours in glass cockpit airplanes, I still consider myself at the lower skill level using those systems, and hardly capable of giving training for them, but I see that they are the future - we're never going back to paper & watch navigation! But these skills should be an add on to basic PPL training, rather than edging out some very basis flying skills. A candidate's ability to fly a stall held as far into the break as the type will allow, and a presentable 180 degree forced approach, with a sideslip to tuck it in tight, and a gentle touchdown, should be skills that every pilot has learned - no one leaves type training with me without showing me their ability to do those! They are life saving basics - and as an instructor, you must be able to demonstrate them with confidence!

[jonkster]

I think it worth thinking about what is the main objective we are trying to achieve when training pilots and then see how well the typical training syllabuses (sylllabi?") address that objective.

My take is - we are trying to produce safe pilots who can cope well with the threats thrown at them when operating an aircraft during their flying careers (or their ongoing flying journey).
The accident stats are the main way we can measure our performance in that regard.
I suspect that not a lot has changed in typical accident causes/factors over the last 50 years.

Stalls on take-offs and on approaches, bad landings, fuel starvation/exhaustion, flight into poor weather/loss of control in IMC.

You can end up tied in knots using statistics to show what is happening however I think the main causes of "pilot error" accidents are more to do with overconfidence and poor decision making than poor training in hand skills.

I recognise poor decision making can be the result of poor training - sometimes it can be the pilot is using so much of their mental horsepower to fly the aircraft (due poor training) and so have little left over to cope with (or even recognise) threats around them however I also suspect a lot is due to 3 factors,
- lack of total experience,
- lack of recency and
- failures of airmanship.

Looking at stats on experience, it seems the most dangerous period for GA pilots is not just after training (which would be the case if we were turning out poorly prepared pilots) but around the 400-800 hour mark when pilots start to feel confident (and may be flying less regularly than when they first started flying).
I am all for teaching people good handling skills including stall and spin recovery, aerobatics, UAs etc however to me the outcome of this is not that the pilot will recover from an unexpected spin or return to level after unexpectedly getting themselves inverted but so they never unexpectedly get into an unexpected stall or inverted in the first place.

Why do pilots get into those situations accidently?

And how do we better teach them so when they get to that 500 hours experience mark:
- To not fly into inappropriate weather?
- To manage their fuel the way they did during training?
- To keep their crosswind landing technique skills current?
- To put down the landing gear when distracted by other things?
- To not attempt a turn back at inappropriate altitude after an EFATO (despite repeated training in the ab-inito phase)
- To handle an engine failure in flight the way they did during their training?
- To not skid their final turns? (something they didn't do in their early training)
etc

If we could teach that I reckon the fatality rate in GA would dramatically drop. How do you make a syllabus that does that?

Teaching airmanship and human factors/non technical skills seems the most difficult thing to teach well and in a way that actually sticks long term.

Even to the point of my own flying - what is my biggest threat? I suspect it is not a handling mistake but a dumb decision that comes from distraction or complacency.

(NB I am not trying to be-little teaching good hand skills including stall/spins/UA recovery etc, something that forms a large part of my current role)

[Manwell]

I'd agree that poor decision making is definitely a contributing factor in most accidents, Jonkster, which suggests that pilots aren't taught how to make informed decisions in the first place, because instructors don't know how to themselves. From my own experience, fear is used to discourage rational thought processes, so when circumstances are presented that induce fear, it's natural to make poor decisions.

However, wouldn't you agree that the way to better teach pilots to avoid situations requiring the use of superior skills, must include exposure to those situations in a calm, rational manner, rather than trying to scare them out of anything considered risky?

BTW, Airmanship and human factors knowledge make better pilots too, but instructors usually don't know enough about either, which is evidenced by their own example, and their example would have been influenced by their instructors.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I tried to get every Commercial student of mine exposure to actual low visibility conditions of I could. This was hard in the summer but in the winter 700 broken 2 to 3 miles was not that uncommon and so we would get a special VFR departure and fly to another airport 11 miles away and back. This was pre GPS and about half got lost and disorientated on the way there or back. All of my students noted that they had a new found respect for the difficulties of flying in actual low visibility.

[RichardJones]

A question often asked is this.
On a cross country trip, VFR into deteriorating weather.. When is the correct time too "Turn back"?
WHEN YOU FIRST THINK ABOUT IT!
Same with aerial work, for eg , when too call it a day,

[Pilot DAR]

so when circumstances are presented that induce fear, it's natural to make poor decisions.

Well... I think that the two are less related. "Fear" in and of itself can be a very useful tool in making a pilot pay attention to the situation. For me, when I begin to fear something while flying (or contemplating it) my first thought is what is my "plan B" should I need to do that. A sense of fear is also very useful in preventing doing needless nor stupid things in airplanes. Many times, while flying or flight testing my client's prized company test airplane, a product of thousands of hours of dedicated work and investment, I have a persistent fear of having to explain how it got bent while in my care. Yet my job is to fly it to limits to be sure it complies. So, in those cases, my "plan B" begins before the flight as excluding threats which have no benefit to the flying. In any case, I frequently allow the prospect of fear to affect my decision making.

As for the decision making itself, yeah, you have to have the background understanding of all of the risks to be able to anticipate what to be afraid of, and decide well! This is probably where the gap exists in the present flight training environment. Do the instructors have personal experiences with risky situations, to correctly understand risk, and promote appropriate fear? I opine not as much as the generations which went before. Reasonable regulatory and industry safety initiatives steer "normal" flying toward being more safe - excellent! The side effect of that is that normal operations tend away from more risk, so those pilots simply don't get that element of the experience, upon which to base decision making and useful fear. It seems that we have a generation of new pilots who are "afraid" of spinning. In decades past, we'd go spinning for fun - it was normal flying, when done within wise (published) limitations. The fear about spinning should come when doing it at questionably low altitudes, or unsuitable airplane condition/types.

Pilot training would benefit from new instructors embracing wisdom of those who have gone before; both "yes, this can be safely done within limitations", and "don't do that if you can avoid it". In a correctly loaded 172, and with suitable space under you, a spin is fine if well executed. But, in that same airplane, a pilot might think nothing of a climb away at Vx when there is no obstacle to clear, entirely unaware that fear right then would be very wise. A Vx climb may have you in a regime of flight from which an EFATO cannot be recovered to a safe landing.

Ironically, the one time I got it really wrong, and allowed my student to splash us, it was a zero fear situation, he had demonstrated excellent handling skills in the dozen or more hours we'd flown together those days, and conditions were perfect for a good landing in all regards. I was going to get out at the dock, and send him solo. I had zero fear about what was to become a near fatal event. My renewed fear based on that, has me avoiding doing training. The fellow who took over from me made the same mistake as I the following year (ironically at the same location), the only difference being that he had got out at the dock, so he watched a near fatal splash, other than being aboard for it. Not much less worrying though!

Take every opportunity to learn what to be afraid of, and what plan B should be. Have lots of plan B's and don't hesitate to switch to them. Just one advice about that, once you decide to switch to plan B, stick with that decision, unless the change in circumstance after your decision is profound. Do not waffle between plans A & B, that is no plan!

[Fred.Kite]

I’ve just quickly read through most of these posts and I would like to confirm the OP’s original suggestion. Yes, pilot training is mostly the blind leading the blind in my experience within the UK.

One of the first questions I ask when delivering a FI course is:

“Are you hoping to become a FI for your sake or the sake of the student”?

The honest answer will usually determine how blind the FI will end up!

[PPRuNeUser469990]

Until instructors are paid properly and not exploited by flight schools, it will always attract newbies who just need hours before moving on to a "proper" job

[cavuman1]

My flight instructor (who was to become a dear and valued friend) was an ATPL with 28,000 hours. He was a brilliant teacher and I was a willing student. In my case, at least, it was the Eagle-Eyed leading the blind!

- Ed

[olster]

Hargreaves99 you are absolutely correct. However I will say that in the UK the cost of running a flight school is getting out of hand. My pal runs a flight school in Scotland. He showed me an invoice he received for 11,000 pounds (14,000 dollars) for a 100 hour check on his PA28. The invoice including many spurious and questionable items was an outrage for ostensibly a serviceable aircraft. I fully agree that instructors should be paid more but the overheads are virtually out of control.

[RichardJones]

This is as stupid, as it looks. This is the reality, therefore the stupidity these days.
How does one determine, whether a person has the skills or not, to become a pilot, by a few questions?.Who are they trying too weed out?
in my day the criteria, was count, without using fingers, read and understand English.

[Fred.Kite]

The problem starts with the low standard of FIC candidates who have spent most of their time building up hours flying cross countries. 75 % of hour building should involve manoeuvring flight other than exercise 18. No pain, no gain. Circuit flying may be boring but you will learn far more in the circuit in one hour than you will on a one hour cross country.

[Fred.Kite]

Originally Posted by RichardJones

This is as stupid, as it looks. This is the reality, therefore the stupidity these days.
How does one determine, whether a person has the skills or not, to become a pilot, by a few questions?.Who are they trying too weed out?
in my day the criteria, was count, without using fingers, read and understand English.

Being a pilot and being a FI are two different things. Many pilots are totally unsuitable to be FI’s. Teaching is a vocation first and foremost.