Having read a fair few textbooks on flight instruction and aviation history. A book on CFS history (Central Flying School) summarised that there were really only two independent structures for teaching flying. That from the United States and that from Europe (combination of British Gosport and early French military / civil techniques). This can be seen by the regulations played out all over the world. You either follow US FAR conventions or JAR and now EASA. Russia and China are a little unknown but from what little I know they were influenced by the European (Russia) and US (Chine flying tiger era) theories.

Interesting discussion, though.

Totally agree, but the Regulator (EASA) expects DTOs to adhere to a Training Programme based upon the EASA syllabus that neither seperates exercises into 2 parts nor places any emphasis on doing so. It even offers the LAPL option of doing it in 25% less time.

"There is absolutely many examples of "fatally flawed" instruction out there. My personal experience flying with pilots who were not doing well was the fact that invariably the problem was a lack of fundamental flying skills. By that I mean they could not recognize and hold the correct attitude for what ever maneuver they trying to fly, could not maintain coordinated flight and could not smoothly transition from one flight regime to another ( eg straight and level to climb). This was because they had never been properly taught ex 5 to 9 in the first place."

Thankyou very much Big Pistons. Fundamental skills are indeed the problem. Recognizing and holding attitudes is important, but being able to smoothly control attitude including transition from one to another and keeping the aircraft balanced without reference to the instruments would be even better, would it not? Correct, all these problems stem from never having been properly taught in the first place.

"It will take a very persuasive argument for someone to convince me that there is a better way to teach the basic hands and feet skills that under pin every part of flying, although I am genuinely open to new ideas." You'll be glad to hear there is.

"Where there should be change in flight instruction in my opinion, is in the thinking part of flying." Agreed, but not in the way you implied. Flying is mostly a mental discipline, and the thinking part that is most missing is big picture thinking.

Thank you too rarelyathome. Effects of Controls is indeed the key, and the way it's been taught is basically the whole problem. Airmanship, or lack thereof, is a function of respect. An expat CFI instructed me to discipline a Malaysian student for having the audacity to ask him uncomfortable questions he couldn't answer. His reply, after an appropriate contemplative delay, blew me away. "We used to respect the instructors, but they didn't respect us back..." Fark me! Respect is a two way street! Some of the most valuable lessons I've learned were from my own students. Respect isn't free. It has to be earned.

Now we're on the right track Gentlemen. If the others I haven't responded to would like some attention, try paying attention. You can't buy this knowledge with anything less valuable.

Yes EASA expects, in our case an ATO, to adhere to a training programme but it doesn't prohibit exercises being split and I would argue strongly that Ex 4 is a clear case where it needs to be split if it is to be taught thoroughly and at a pace where the student can take it all in. It is the absolute foundation stone.

You are most welcome.