Re-write the PPL syllabus
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been done more than a few times.
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/451575-spin.html
When I brought up the "unusual attitudes" words earlier today, I didn't just mean spinning. You can also think about accellerated stalls (load the wings up in a turn), full-power (departure) stalls, upset recovery from the inverted, recovery from spiral dives, flight well above Vno (close to Vne), maximum performance turning (think dead-end canyon), extreme sideslipping (think engine fire in the air).
This is then done not to teach the PPL student how to perform all these maneuvers to any sort of standard, but to let them know that in most flight regimes they are quite far from the edge of the envelope, and even when they get near the edge of the envelope from there, the aircraft is still fully controllable. But also to teach them what phases of flight they are very close to the edge of the envelope, and what happens if they **** up then.
Open book exams: No no no no.
Oh, and while we're talking about the theory overhaul: The thing that bit me when I finally got my PPL (trained in the US, under CAA oversight, using the Jeremy Pratt books, flying in NL) was that the theory books didn't always adequately explain what the ICAO rule, the JAR-FCL rule and the country rule was. Particularly local oddities such as the quadrantal rule - it was never mentioned that that applied to the UK only. Likewise, for instance, the way countries use the A-G airspace classes, the types of FIS services available, booking in/out rules, customs issues and the GAR form, flight plan requirements & submission.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Must admit I'm quite surprised that Spin training is not part of an FI rating as they are probably the most likely people of all to find themselves in that situation!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In no particular order:
First few hours - no instruments. Teach attitude flying and lookout.
More general handling. The Americans are good at this with turns around ground features. Also chandels/lazy 8s.
More variety - landaways.
More instrument flying (ie not just a 180).
A night stop - having to find your way around planning etc away from base.
Leaning!!!
First few hours - no instruments. Teach attitude flying and lookout.
More general handling. The Americans are good at this with turns around ground features. Also chandels/lazy 8s.
More variety - landaways.
More instrument flying (ie not just a 180).
A night stop - having to find your way around planning etc away from base.
Leaning!!!
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One other thing; probably not feasible to do from a regulatory point of view but I certainly felt like the constant switching of instructors that I encountered during my PPL should not have been allowed.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 67
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What next, you seem to have some strange ideas about who has spin accidents. In fact, highly experienced pilots are no safer than new pilots and as for instructors ...
"In reviewing 44 fatal stall/spin accidents from 1991 - 2000 and classified as instructional, ASF found that a shocking 91%(40) of them occurred during dual instruction, with only 9% (4) solo training flights. Of the fatal instructional accidents, 64.4% of them occurred during manoeuvring, and 17.8% of them occurred during takeoff."
Cheers
"In reviewing 44 fatal stall/spin accidents from 1991 - 2000 and classified as instructional, ASF found that a shocking 91%(40) of them occurred during dual instruction, with only 9% (4) solo training flights. Of the fatal instructional accidents, 64.4% of them occurred during manoeuvring, and 17.8% of them occurred during takeoff."
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ...back of the drag curve
Age: 61
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only allow people to instruct (even if they have no Commercial License) after they have at least 1000 hours on relevant types. That way, the instructors might pass on some 'experience' rather than their lack of it....
The rest will follow....
Oh, and have a realistic currency figure.. A minimum of 12 hours (or whatever it is these days) over 2 years and a flight with an instructor is not enough.
The rest will follow....
Oh, and have a realistic currency figure.. A minimum of 12 hours (or whatever it is these days) over 2 years and a flight with an instructor is not enough.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What next, you seem to have some strange ideas about who has spin accidents.
Looking at your ASF statistics "Of the fatal instructional accidents, 64.4% of them occurred during manoeuvring" I wonder if "manoeuvring" might have anything to do with spin training itself? And if proper stall avoidance and awareness training could have prevented many of these accidents? Maybe?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only allow people to instruct (even if they have no Commercial License) after they have at least 1000 hours on relevant types.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All interesting stuff. However, can I play devils advocate for a bit.....
What if I were to suggest that the syllabus should contain the bare minimum neeed to fly safely. Basic handling, circuits (including crosswind), emergencies (lots of them), navigation without navaids as per the current syllabus. Let's throw in some kind of escape from IMC, too, although I'm not sure how useful that really is.
I'm sure there are lots of gasps in response to this. What about navaids? GPS? Different types of aircraft? FADEC, Rotax engines? International flight? And so on, and so on.....
Well, the simple fact is that most PPLs will want some of these "extras", but very few will want all of them. And there's a reasonable chance that they won't be wanted immediately after gaining the PPL - there may be a gap of a few years in between. So why not have some system where all of these really useful techniques can be taught after a pilot has gained his PPL, perhaps a considerable amount of time after, when he is actually ready to use the information? You want to fly a DA40? We'll teach you about FADEC and glass cockpits then. You want to fly to France? We'll teach you how to file a flight plan and check customs requirements. You want to fly a Tiger Moth out of a strip in Yorkshire? Well then FADEC, glass cockpits and going to France are probably not subjects that you have much interest in learning......
Just a thought.
(Of course thoughts don't come from nowhere. This describes exactly what I did. I learnt how to file a flight plan from an instructor when I did a cross-channel checkout some time after getting my PPL. I learnt about glass cockpits when I first flew an aircraft with one. I learnt about Rotax engines when I first flew an aircraft with one, and I've never yet flown an aircfraft with FADEC so I know very little about it - and I'm not bothered by that, because I know that if/when I ever fly such an aircraft I'll learn all I need to know, and it'll be a lot more meaningful than it would have been if I'd learnt it several years ago.)
FFF
------------------
(Edit to add that, contrary to some earlier posts, spin training, including demonstrating a spin recovery, is a mandatory part of instructor training - or at least it was in the UK when I did my instructor training, I don't know about other countries or about further back in time. It's also a mandatory part of renewal or revalidation of an instructor rating, every 3 years - at the very least, to brief the recovery, if the aircraft being used for the test isn't approved for spinning.)
What if I were to suggest that the syllabus should contain the bare minimum neeed to fly safely. Basic handling, circuits (including crosswind), emergencies (lots of them), navigation without navaids as per the current syllabus. Let's throw in some kind of escape from IMC, too, although I'm not sure how useful that really is.
I'm sure there are lots of gasps in response to this. What about navaids? GPS? Different types of aircraft? FADEC, Rotax engines? International flight? And so on, and so on.....
Well, the simple fact is that most PPLs will want some of these "extras", but very few will want all of them. And there's a reasonable chance that they won't be wanted immediately after gaining the PPL - there may be a gap of a few years in between. So why not have some system where all of these really useful techniques can be taught after a pilot has gained his PPL, perhaps a considerable amount of time after, when he is actually ready to use the information? You want to fly a DA40? We'll teach you about FADEC and glass cockpits then. You want to fly to France? We'll teach you how to file a flight plan and check customs requirements. You want to fly a Tiger Moth out of a strip in Yorkshire? Well then FADEC, glass cockpits and going to France are probably not subjects that you have much interest in learning......
Just a thought.
(Of course thoughts don't come from nowhere. This describes exactly what I did. I learnt how to file a flight plan from an instructor when I did a cross-channel checkout some time after getting my PPL. I learnt about glass cockpits when I first flew an aircraft with one. I learnt about Rotax engines when I first flew an aircraft with one, and I've never yet flown an aircfraft with FADEC so I know very little about it - and I'm not bothered by that, because I know that if/when I ever fly such an aircraft I'll learn all I need to know, and it'll be a lot more meaningful than it would have been if I'd learnt it several years ago.)
FFF
------------------
(Edit to add that, contrary to some earlier posts, spin training, including demonstrating a spin recovery, is a mandatory part of instructor training - or at least it was in the UK when I did my instructor training, I don't know about other countries or about further back in time. It's also a mandatory part of renewal or revalidation of an instructor rating, every 3 years - at the very least, to brief the recovery, if the aircraft being used for the test isn't approved for spinning.)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hellfire Corner
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only allow people to instruct (even if they have no Commercial License) after they have at least 1000 hours on relevant types. That way, the instructors might pass on some 'experience' rather than their lack of it....
Quite agree.
What may be taught by some, but I fear not enough, are dead stick PFLs.
Perhaps we could also include a hefty chunk that stops people flying the radio.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting NATS safety presentation at BMAA Safety Day at Prestwick.
Of course, they could not produce one instance of a pilot who thought: let's go and infringe some airspace today. My pals will have lots of fun watching the aircraft being diverted all over the place!
So, all the infringements were accidental - which ultimately means based on ignorance (in particular, of position, obviously)
And ignorance comes from poor training!
So my thought, as an instructor, is that any infringements by my students or former students, are MY fault, not theirs.
And so, yes, we really, really need to change not just the syllabus (hey, I am off track by 5 miles, so I start calculating the one in 60 rule etc etc instead of immediately getting on the radio? ie Maybe Aviate, Communicate, Navigate - since if we have stopped navigating we have got off track!) but also the way we teach.
Of course, they could not produce one instance of a pilot who thought: let's go and infringe some airspace today. My pals will have lots of fun watching the aircraft being diverted all over the place!
So, all the infringements were accidental - which ultimately means based on ignorance (in particular, of position, obviously)
And ignorance comes from poor training!
So my thought, as an instructor, is that any infringements by my students or former students, are MY fault, not theirs.
And so, yes, we really, really need to change not just the syllabus (hey, I am off track by 5 miles, so I start calculating the one in 60 rule etc etc instead of immediately getting on the radio? ie Maybe Aviate, Communicate, Navigate - since if we have stopped navigating we have got off track!) but also the way we teach.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And ignorance comes from poor training!
It would be true to say that all software bugs were written by programmers, but the same doesn't apply to humans
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingForFun has hit the nail on the head. The PPL is a basic license, if you want or need extra capabiltity you will know enough with a PPL to be able to go out and find it. There are many courses available like aero's, EFIS, tail wheel, farm strips etc. and alot of helpful/ knowledgeable pilots/ instructors about that can help with specific things like foreign nav.
Reading this thread it sounds like alot of people want everything they can think of stuck in the PPL.
I do however agree that practical navigation in the PPL should be addressed. There could be better integration in the course of how to obtain relevant NOTAMs, and computer based planning, and perhaps GPS. There could also be some compulsory nav in controlled airspace and filing flight plans.
In fact in the UK you could argue that the IMC be integrated into the PPL since it would be of benefit to all given our weather! This might resolve the problem with PPLs being unable to turn 180 degrees on instruments too. I'll leave it up to you guys to "discuss" whether PPL students should be taught to recover from a spin in IMC though!
Perhaps NAAs should be given some latitude on deciding what relevant "extras" the PPL should include in their specific regions?
Reading this thread it sounds like alot of people want everything they can think of stuck in the PPL.
I do however agree that practical navigation in the PPL should be addressed. There could be better integration in the course of how to obtain relevant NOTAMs, and computer based planning, and perhaps GPS. There could also be some compulsory nav in controlled airspace and filing flight plans.
In fact in the UK you could argue that the IMC be integrated into the PPL since it would be of benefit to all given our weather! This might resolve the problem with PPLs being unable to turn 180 degrees on instruments too. I'll leave it up to you guys to "discuss" whether PPL students should be taught to recover from a spin in IMC though!
Perhaps NAAs should be given some latitude on deciding what relevant "extras" the PPL should include in their specific regions?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is truth there too, but if a PPL does not give you the ability to fly confidently abroad, then it has failed comprehensively.
Aerobatics is a very different thing which completely understandably requires extra training, and lots of it.
Same for flying "unusual" types like taildraggers.
I don't buy the idea that a PPL which teaches you to fly from Goodwood to Bembridge is a good product.
Aerobatics is a very different thing which completely understandably requires extra training, and lots of it.
Same for flying "unusual" types like taildraggers.
I don't buy the idea that a PPL which teaches you to fly from Goodwood to Bembridge is a good product.
Moderator
Thread Starter
I don't buy the idea that a PPL which teaches you to fly from Goodwood to Bembridge is a good product.
I did a longish cross country earlier in the week - nothing dramatic, but I was thinking en-route that a number of things that I was doing - landing at a non-radio strip, integrating DR, GPS and VOR into my navigation, making a straight in join at my return airfield because it saved a few minutes and the tower didn't mind: all of this is sensible piloting, none of it is in either syllabus. All learned, pretty much, by flying on my own or with more experienced pilots over a lot of hours, but all of which you could make a case should be taught somewhere in PPL, let-alone CPL.
G
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:-What I also would like to see somehow is a discussion on "newer" engine types. I mean newer than the traditional Lycosaurus O-320 and such. For instance the different starting procedures of carbs vs. injection. Discussion of FADEC engines (both diesel and avgas) and the vastly different emergency procedures associated with them. Plus some specifics on diesel engines and maybe Rotax. That's probably something for the theory syllabus though.
Not a bad Idea, but most PPL holders are still operating the Lycoming using techniques were issues for the Gypsy (IE mixture cut at idle to shut down, no plug clearing run before shutdown, no leaning below 6000ft Etc).
The fact is that most of the instructors who are just passing through on the way to the airlines are just passing on the stuff that was passed on to them from the 1950's and have zero interest in anything except getting more flying hours and any bit of skirt that walks through the door.
Not a bad Idea, but most PPL holders are still operating the Lycoming using techniques were issues for the Gypsy (IE mixture cut at idle to shut down, no plug clearing run before shutdown, no leaning below 6000ft Etc).
The fact is that most of the instructors who are just passing through on the way to the airlines are just passing on the stuff that was passed on to them from the 1950's and have zero interest in anything except getting more flying hours and any bit of skirt that walks through the door.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but frankly that's what my PPL did, and my CPL just taught me to do it better.
Perhaps the fact that the vast majority of the punters stop flying within a year or two. In fact, IME, most stop flying the moment they get their PPL.
And not just the PPL. I am slightly more than haflway through the Bogus (JAA) IR now. Never seen so much utter bollox. The relevance to aviation is somewhere below 10%. Luckily I have 2.5 months to grind my way through the Met and A/L question banks but what value does this deliver? Zilch. It is just a huge ego trip for a load of oddball types who have never flown a plane, and the PPL theory is no different. The PPL system hangs in there only because most PPLs give up right away and most of the rest never go anywhere, and the ATPL system hangs in there because everybody is too skint and nobody wants to rock the boat.
