Re-write the PPL syllabus
Moderator
Thread Starter
Re-write the PPL syllabus
Okay, there's a lot of experienced pilots here - some of whom are instructors. Hopefully most of us can remember back to when we learned to fly. That was probably to a syllabus that hasn't changed much since about 1950.
So, I was wondering, if we leave the current 45 hours alone, what would we regard as "about right" for a new PPL syllabus, if we were starting from scratch?
I'll throw in my starter for 10:
Writtens: get rid of all the "terminology stuff" in the technical papers, switch to more about how light aeroplanes actually work,bin the cobblers "janet and john" aerodynamics, make met more about how to interpret safety of flight from forecasts. Air law to include permit aeroplane and pilot maintenance/ownership rules. So far as possible make it all open book so that people are showing they know how to look things up, rather than memorise pointless stuff like where a country's airspace starts and ends. Bring in some airmanship/CRM somewhere, probably in the currently rather lightweight HPL.
Hrs 1-15, basic handling, RT, circuits, emergencies use of checks, aiming for solo about hour 15. (Much as it's been since the 1920s - that bit works).
15-20, initial nav training - old fashioned DR stuff.
21-25, emergencies, lots of emergencies. Average sortie length about 45 minutes, lengthy briefs and debriefs. And real emergencies - not just the seldom-seen engine fire/failure - radio failure, jammed flaps, control restriction, the sort of stuff that actually happens.
25-35, integrated nav (using all the kit in the aeroplane from NDB to GPS, integrating with DR into true combined nav), with regular emergencies and complex RT along the way. Average sortie length here about 90 minutes.
36-40, airmanship, landings and circuits at different types of airports: to cover short grass strips and a busy mixed-traffic controlled airport as a minimum, airspace crossing, more practice emergencies along the way,
41: basic appreciation of how to fly on instruments - get rid of the deadly "180 out of cloud" which will kill most low hour pilots, replace with "descend/climb out of, maintaining wings level"
42: mandatory hour in a substantially different type, including briefing on how to read and learn your way into a new aeroplane type.
43-45: two short test profiles
46: test: which now does partially ded-reckoned nav, and partly fully-integrated nav, enhances airmanship, the student doesn't know what emergencies they're going to get, and those emergencies must be within normal flight, not at a special bit at the end.
G
So, I was wondering, if we leave the current 45 hours alone, what would we regard as "about right" for a new PPL syllabus, if we were starting from scratch?
I'll throw in my starter for 10:
Writtens: get rid of all the "terminology stuff" in the technical papers, switch to more about how light aeroplanes actually work,bin the cobblers "janet and john" aerodynamics, make met more about how to interpret safety of flight from forecasts. Air law to include permit aeroplane and pilot maintenance/ownership rules. So far as possible make it all open book so that people are showing they know how to look things up, rather than memorise pointless stuff like where a country's airspace starts and ends. Bring in some airmanship/CRM somewhere, probably in the currently rather lightweight HPL.
Hrs 1-15, basic handling, RT, circuits, emergencies use of checks, aiming for solo about hour 15. (Much as it's been since the 1920s - that bit works).
15-20, initial nav training - old fashioned DR stuff.
21-25, emergencies, lots of emergencies. Average sortie length about 45 minutes, lengthy briefs and debriefs. And real emergencies - not just the seldom-seen engine fire/failure - radio failure, jammed flaps, control restriction, the sort of stuff that actually happens.
25-35, integrated nav (using all the kit in the aeroplane from NDB to GPS, integrating with DR into true combined nav), with regular emergencies and complex RT along the way. Average sortie length here about 90 minutes.
36-40, airmanship, landings and circuits at different types of airports: to cover short grass strips and a busy mixed-traffic controlled airport as a minimum, airspace crossing, more practice emergencies along the way,
41: basic appreciation of how to fly on instruments - get rid of the deadly "180 out of cloud" which will kill most low hour pilots, replace with "descend/climb out of, maintaining wings level"
42: mandatory hour in a substantially different type, including briefing on how to read and learn your way into a new aeroplane type.
43-45: two short test profiles
46: test: which now does partially ded-reckoned nav, and partly fully-integrated nav, enhances airmanship, the student doesn't know what emergencies they're going to get, and those emergencies must be within normal flight, not at a special bit at the end.
G
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like it. Particularly the "substantially different type" part. Give the student the POH beforehand, and have a quick quiz about that just before the flight. V-speeds, TO/LD distances, emergency procedures, that sort of stuff.
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.
Furthermore, can we squeeze in an "unusual attitudes" hour somewhere?
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.
Furthermore, can we squeeze in an "unusual attitudes" hour somewhere?
Sorry to divert from the second reply, but I am slightly alarmed at your "deadly 180 out of cloud". What is so deadly about it? The one time I saw a massive wall of sea fog coming straight at me (flying EBKT-EBFN at the time) I did make a 180° turn, but slowly and staying well clear of the stuff; and no harm came of it.
As to the subject of your post I have little to say, being a low-time microlight flier. Can only say it took me substantially more than 15 hours before solo, but that must have been due to my lack of youth and mental adaptability, added to several changes of plane, instructor, and environment.
I second Backpacker's remarks about the various engine technologies and how to handle them. Might be hard to find an instructor with experience/authority on all sorts, though.
Unusual attitudes came at a very early stage for me, even before first solo. Was limited to a straight ahead stall, though, spins being forbidden for microlights. After first solo I got sideslips, and when I mastered those, powerless landings. Powerless landings had to be sufficiently OK before I was released on solo cross-country.
As to the subject of your post I have little to say, being a low-time microlight flier. Can only say it took me substantially more than 15 hours before solo, but that must have been due to my lack of youth and mental adaptability, added to several changes of plane, instructor, and environment.
I second Backpacker's remarks about the various engine technologies and how to handle them. Might be hard to find an instructor with experience/authority on all sorts, though.
Unusual attitudes came at a very early stage for me, even before first solo. Was limited to a straight ahead stall, though, spins being forbidden for microlights. After first solo I got sideslips, and when I mastered those, powerless landings. Powerless landings had to be sufficiently OK before I was released on solo cross-country.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The theory needs a massive overhaul. Most of it is irrelevant crap.
Another thing I think is a waste is the strong emphasis on going solo ASAP, and as a part of that the obscession with flying loads of circuits. Circuits are a very high workload activity and not a lot sinks in; the student just sweats like hell and goes brain-dead after half an hour. A short flight and a landing/T&G is more effective.
The flight test should have a requirement, like the FAA has, to demonstrate competence on all installed avionics.
Another thing I think is a waste is the strong emphasis on going solo ASAP, and as a part of that the obscession with flying loads of circuits. Circuits are a very high workload activity and not a lot sinks in; the student just sweats like hell and goes brain-dead after half an hour. A short flight and a landing/T&G is more effective.
The flight test should have a requirement, like the FAA has, to demonstrate competence on all installed avionics.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Job Centre
Age: 74
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly time for an update.
Open book exams ... well there are some things that you need to pull out of the air when you're on the job - maybe a mix of open book and essential 'must know'?
How about some stuff on computer-based flight planning?
Definitely need much more on GPS
Agree about how to prepare for a new aircraft type using a real POH
Had to use light signals a couple of weeks ago - never done that for real before - it was a very bright day and I couldn't see them from a mile away.
Many schools have a diverse fleet with different panel fits - how many students can demonstrate what ALL the knobs do on the aircraft they fly (intercom panel, auto-pilot on/off?, what do all those circuit breakers do?)
AND
How about approach and land without an ASI?
SD
Open book exams ... well there are some things that you need to pull out of the air when you're on the job - maybe a mix of open book and essential 'must know'?
How about some stuff on computer-based flight planning?
Definitely need much more on GPS
Agree about how to prepare for a new aircraft type using a real POH
Had to use light signals a couple of weeks ago - never done that for real before - it was a very bright day and I couldn't see them from a mile away.
Many schools have a diverse fleet with different panel fits - how many students can demonstrate what ALL the knobs do on the aircraft they fly (intercom panel, auto-pilot on/off?, what do all those circuit breakers do?)
AND
How about approach and land without an ASI?
SD
Moderator
Thread Starter
Jan - 180 whilst remaining VMC - yes. However, I was involved in a simulator study a while ago with a variety of PPLs and commercial pilots who we put in various unexpected situations in a sim. When we introduced an inadvertent flight into cloud, over 50% of the PPLs who tried to do a 180 out of it lost control and ended up in a stall/spin. Any pilot, of any experience level, who kept the wings level and either climbed, descended or flew through it survived the experience.
IO540 - I agree about the avionics, I'm not sure I agree about the early solo. It's both an excellent motivator, and brings us all over a step into much greater confidence in our own abilities. Plus learning to fly is supposed to be FUN, and I certainly remember the huge grin on my face after mine (which lasted at-least an hour until it had made me late picking my then-girlfriend up from work and she made her views on that abundantly clear
).
Unusual attitudes - I definitely forgot that one. Somewhere pre-solo, and then inclusion as another emergencies as those are practiced and practiced perhaps? Should be, I'd argue, integrated into everything else - as should emergencies, rather than treated as a discrete exercise.
Sunday - I've twice had to land with a U/S ASI, so definitely would include that in emergencies. Good point!
G
IO540 - I agree about the avionics, I'm not sure I agree about the early solo. It's both an excellent motivator, and brings us all over a step into much greater confidence in our own abilities. Plus learning to fly is supposed to be FUN, and I certainly remember the huge grin on my face after mine (which lasted at-least an hour until it had made me late picking my then-girlfriend up from work and she made her views on that abundantly clear
).Unusual attitudes - I definitely forgot that one. Somewhere pre-solo, and then inclusion as another emergencies as those are practiced and practiced perhaps? Should be, I'd argue, integrated into everything else - as should emergencies, rather than treated as a discrete exercise.
Sunday - I've twice had to land with a U/S ASI, so definitely would include that in emergencies. Good point!
G
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not just the PPL that needs updating, its the whole system from PPL to CPL and right the way through to the IR.
Take the CPL for example, its nothing more than a 'posh' PPL - 25 hours of glide approaches, PFL's, and finding small cottages on remote hillsides, all in a supposedly 'complex' aircraft(Piper arrow
). Now look at the 'average' CPL student - 99% of them must be youngs boys and girls destined to fly an Airbus. What use is the current CPL syllabus to them?
The IR is just as bad, in fact, dont get me started!
Take the CPL for example, its nothing more than a 'posh' PPL - 25 hours of glide approaches, PFL's, and finding small cottages on remote hillsides, all in a supposedly 'complex' aircraft(Piper arrow
). Now look at the 'average' CPL student - 99% of them must be youngs boys and girls destined to fly an Airbus. What use is the current CPL syllabus to them? The IR is just as bad, in fact, dont get me started!
The current PPL syllabus, both UK and JAA/EASA is down to Ron Campbell, who copied it from the RAF CFS in the mid 50s. The RAF syllabus dates back to Smith-Barry who introduced it at Gosport around 1917.
Like many syllabi of the time, theory was never well defined or quantified, and it has never ever been the subject of any form of training analysis. Exams were written around the text books available (initially Birch and Bramson) and later, the verbose Trevor Thom volumes, by a person who was not even a PPL Instructor! The introduction of JAR-FCL saw a few additions to the same old syllabus and questions became even more obtuse in an attempt to include ever more irrelevant items (e.g. Chicago Convention) deceided by a committee of non PPL instructors.
The JAA had 12 years to produce theory exams, but as the PPL was never meant to be part of JAR (AOPA proposed that it should be) it was never in their original plan. Having seen their attemt at proffesional exams, it is probably just as well they didn't. EASA now propose numerous ill conceived and totally unprepared new licences for different aircraft categories, at two different levels (PPL and LAPL) yet there is not an examination question in sight, neither is there any intention to produce any.
What we need is theory that reflects the practice at both PPL and professional level however; the chance of any change in the near future is Zilch. The CAA no longer employ any experienced ground examiners, EASA has none, and organisations like LPLUS are producing irrelevant junk at the professional level.
Like many syllabi of the time, theory was never well defined or quantified, and it has never ever been the subject of any form of training analysis. Exams were written around the text books available (initially Birch and Bramson) and later, the verbose Trevor Thom volumes, by a person who was not even a PPL Instructor! The introduction of JAR-FCL saw a few additions to the same old syllabus and questions became even more obtuse in an attempt to include ever more irrelevant items (e.g. Chicago Convention) deceided by a committee of non PPL instructors.
The JAA had 12 years to produce theory exams, but as the PPL was never meant to be part of JAR (AOPA proposed that it should be) it was never in their original plan. Having seen their attemt at proffesional exams, it is probably just as well they didn't. EASA now propose numerous ill conceived and totally unprepared new licences for different aircraft categories, at two different levels (PPL and LAPL) yet there is not an examination question in sight, neither is there any intention to produce any.
What we need is theory that reflects the practice at both PPL and professional level however; the chance of any change in the near future is Zilch. The CAA no longer employ any experienced ground examiners, EASA has none, and organisations like LPLUS are producing irrelevant junk at the professional level.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hello!
A few comments from me as well: I don't know which syllabus you are referring to, but I think the JAR syllabus is not so bad overall. What I would like to see is a greater distinction between a course that leads to a "pure PPL" and one that is a stepping stone towards CPL/IR and/or ATPL.
I instruct students from PPL onward, ninetyfive percent of whom will never fly cross-country VFR in their life again. Or piston engine powered aeroplanes, Or propeller driven aeroplanes. These girls and guys should be taught differently from those you will fly their minimum hours required to maintain their licenses for the next forty years. I have talked at length about this with our head of training on several occassions.
And regarding some of the points above:
- Open book exams: No no no no. Ok, get rid of useless stuff in the theoretical part, but the useful stuff must be memorised. There are lots of occasions (especially for pilots who really only fly the minimum hours required) where looking-up things up in the air is not an option.
- Emergencies: Train as many of them as possible. All kinds.
- Hours to first solo: Irrelevant. This only leads to a competition among students over which more important things are forgotten. If anything at all, the guideline should state the number of landings to first solo. (Our flying school for example is operating from an international airport with the nearest training airfield twenty minutes away. Every training flight, starting with number one! is a cross-country naviagtion flight of one hour minimum with only five to ten circuits. This way, our students typically need 25 hours to their first solo).
- Instrument training: The JAR syllabus includes this in a reasonable manner. We must keep in mind however, that a couple of hours under the hood or in a procedures trainer during the PPL will not save anybody who encounters bad weather five years later. We all know that instrument flying skills get lost very quickly (within weeks for some persons) and the best thing is to teach them to stay out of clouds.
- Modern avionics: Yes. In the year 2011, every pilot must be trained to navigate by GPS. He must know the good and bad things about it and know what his plan B can be. He must be able to pull information from a glass screen (almost every microlight is fitted with one now!) quickly and efficiently. Again: After their trainig, "my" students will never fly with conventional instruments again. Ever. Airliners (and bizjets too) have glass for their standby instruments since twenty years. Suction failure? Who cares, there is no suction that can fail. And even if, the latest iPhone will give you attitude, heading and navigation information for longer than the fuel lasts.
Get rid of the awful, useless ADF instead. We waste so much precious time during IFR training for this dinosaur. And if you ask me, no PPL holder needs to worry about VOR/DME navigation either.
- Radio telephony: Every student should come to his first practical lesson with a finished RT license. Training will be much more efficient and the instructor does not have to waste preciuos time (including briefing and debriefing) on teaching radio phraseology.
- And last but not least: I don't care about "pure PPL" students, but for those who train to become professional pilots: Please let them fly "point and power" approaches and teach them to fly by numbers (pitch and power) with proper speed control.
Happy landings,
max
A few comments from me as well: I don't know which syllabus you are referring to, but I think the JAR syllabus is not so bad overall. What I would like to see is a greater distinction between a course that leads to a "pure PPL" and one that is a stepping stone towards CPL/IR and/or ATPL.
I instruct students from PPL onward, ninetyfive percent of whom will never fly cross-country VFR in their life again. Or piston engine powered aeroplanes, Or propeller driven aeroplanes. These girls and guys should be taught differently from those you will fly their minimum hours required to maintain their licenses for the next forty years. I have talked at length about this with our head of training on several occassions.
And regarding some of the points above:
- Open book exams: No no no no. Ok, get rid of useless stuff in the theoretical part, but the useful stuff must be memorised. There are lots of occasions (especially for pilots who really only fly the minimum hours required) where looking-up things up in the air is not an option.
- Emergencies: Train as many of them as possible. All kinds.
- Hours to first solo: Irrelevant. This only leads to a competition among students over which more important things are forgotten. If anything at all, the guideline should state the number of landings to first solo. (Our flying school for example is operating from an international airport with the nearest training airfield twenty minutes away. Every training flight, starting with number one! is a cross-country naviagtion flight of one hour minimum with only five to ten circuits. This way, our students typically need 25 hours to their first solo).
- Instrument training: The JAR syllabus includes this in a reasonable manner. We must keep in mind however, that a couple of hours under the hood or in a procedures trainer during the PPL will not save anybody who encounters bad weather five years later. We all know that instrument flying skills get lost very quickly (within weeks for some persons) and the best thing is to teach them to stay out of clouds.
- Modern avionics: Yes. In the year 2011, every pilot must be trained to navigate by GPS. He must know the good and bad things about it and know what his plan B can be. He must be able to pull information from a glass screen (almost every microlight is fitted with one now!) quickly and efficiently. Again: After their trainig, "my" students will never fly with conventional instruments again. Ever. Airliners (and bizjets too) have glass for their standby instruments since twenty years. Suction failure? Who cares, there is no suction that can fail. And even if, the latest iPhone will give you attitude, heading and navigation information for longer than the fuel lasts.
Get rid of the awful, useless ADF instead. We waste so much precious time during IFR training for this dinosaur. And if you ask me, no PPL holder needs to worry about VOR/DME navigation either.
- Radio telephony: Every student should come to his first practical lesson with a finished RT license. Training will be much more efficient and the instructor does not have to waste preciuos time (including briefing and debriefing) on teaching radio phraseology.
- And last but not least: I don't care about "pure PPL" students, but for those who train to become professional pilots: Please let them fly "point and power" approaches and teach them to fly by numbers (pitch and power) with proper speed control.
Happy landings,
max
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The frozen north....
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Some really excellent comments here, whats the thoughts on spin training as part of UA? I'm sure its been done to death by now on other threads however....
I was lucky enough to have been given spin training during my PPL many moons ago after I tried to pick up a dropped wing during stalling and over she went straight into a spin. The instructor decided it would be wise to cover the recovery so we did 3 or 4 different variations of spins. Obviously not part of the sylabus but it stuck in my mind and I've never tried to pick up a dropped wing with aileron since!
Cant even remember if I did spin training during my CPL or not it was so long ago?!?!?
Regards
UA
I was lucky enough to have been given spin training during my PPL many moons ago after I tried to pick up a dropped wing during stalling and over she went straight into a spin. The instructor decided it would be wise to cover the recovery so we did 3 or 4 different variations of spins. Obviously not part of the sylabus but it stuck in my mind and I've never tried to pick up a dropped wing with aileron since!
Cant even remember if I did spin training during my CPL or not it was so long ago?!?!?
Regards
UA
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Some really excellent comments here, whats the thoughts on spin training as part of UA?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The frozen north....
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
How and by whom? I've been an instructor for twenty years now and spin training was already deleted from the syllabus when I got my own license. My instructor training didn't include spinning either. None of our training aircraft (mostly Pipers) is cleared for spinning. So we would have to send our students to some aerobatics instructor who does the training on his Pitts or Extra. Totally different aeroplanes from what they are going to fly with their PPL. Different spinning behavior, different recovery technique. We rather teach stall avoidance and proper speed control instead.
You can teach speed control all well and good but when something goes wrong it would be very easy for a low hours PPL to get distract and find themselves slow....pretty sure there have been several GA incidents over the years where the final moments have been an entry into a spin at low alt...
As for who / what, well I trained on C152's with mostly Mil / Ex Mil instructors who were more than comfortable with spinning, certainly no need for an Extra or a Pitts.
Just my thoughts anyway, as I said its no doubt been done to death already and I can certainly see both the pros and cons for it.... I am however glad to have had the training though never had cause to use it other than intentionally...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been done more than a few times.
I think it is fair to say there are two schools of thought.
There are those that say it is far more important to learn how to avoid ever spinning and those that say every pilot should at least exerience a spin during their training.
The CAA appears to have sided with the first camp, I suspect mainly for reasons of risk and reward. In other words weighing the risk of spin training against the fatalities involving instructors during spin training has lead them to believe it was better to remove this element from the syllabus. I guess there are similarities with shutting an engine down at the annual renewal.
FWIW I have always thought it is a jolly good thing for every pilot to experience a spin at some point in their flying (I mean an intentional spin) but I am not convinced it should be a compulsory part of the PPL syllabus.
As the earlier poster comments there are now a lot of instructors who are unable to teach spins and many schools without suitable aircraft. If spin training were now re-introduced it would require some significant changes within the current training infra structure and I therefore dont think is likely any time soon.
I think it is fair to say there are two schools of thought.
There are those that say it is far more important to learn how to avoid ever spinning and those that say every pilot should at least exerience a spin during their training.
The CAA appears to have sided with the first camp, I suspect mainly for reasons of risk and reward. In other words weighing the risk of spin training against the fatalities involving instructors during spin training has lead them to believe it was better to remove this element from the syllabus. I guess there are similarities with shutting an engine down at the annual renewal.
FWIW I have always thought it is a jolly good thing for every pilot to experience a spin at some point in their flying (I mean an intentional spin) but I am not convinced it should be a compulsory part of the PPL syllabus.
As the earlier poster comments there are now a lot of instructors who are unable to teach spins and many schools without suitable aircraft. If spin training were now re-introduced it would require some significant changes within the current training infra structure and I therefore dont think is likely any time soon.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jan - 180 whilst remaining VMC - yes. However, I was involved in a simulator study a while ago with a variety of PPLs and commercial pilots who we put in various unexpected situations in a sim. When we introduced an inadvertent flight into cloud, over 50% of the PPLs who tried to do a 180 out of it lost control and ended up in a stall/spin. Any pilot, of any experience level, who kept the wings level and either climbed, descended or flew through it survived the experience.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The frozen north....
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
FWIW I have always thought it is a jolly good thing for every pilot to experience a spin at some point in their flying (I mean an intentional spin) but I am not convinced it should be a compulsory part of the PPL syllabus.
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!
Some interesting analysis here on the subject though it is pretty old:-
spin recovery in fixed wing aircraft
Regards
UA
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting bit of history from Whopity, and unsuprising. I reckon the JAA IR exam syllabus is less than 10% relevant to flying, and it is obvious that most of it was produced by people who have never flown a plane.
My recollection of the JAA PPL stuff is that it is probably not a lot better, but being less of it (than in the IR) it is not so difficult.
My recollection of the JAA PPL stuff is that it is probably not a lot better, but being less of it (than in the IR) it is not so difficult.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it would not be compulsory so it is up to the pilot to make the effort, in the same way that IMO it is well worth every pilot making the effort to do more instrument training even if they dont do an IMCr or IR.
The schools and instructors also have their part to play. I suspect if they organised days when an instructor and suitable aircraft were available they would have enough takers.
I would encourage any newly minted PPL who is serious about their flying to manage a few hours with an instructor every year and use the time to push their boundaries.
The schools and instructors also have their part to play. I suspect if they organised days when an instructor and suitable aircraft were available they would have enough takers.
I would encourage any newly minted PPL who is serious about their flying to manage a few hours with an instructor every year and use the time to push their boundaries.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One's input to this thread needs to be moderated by what might actually happen in the very backward UK system.
But if one was starting with a clean sheet, one would bring in a lot more instrument training, computer (laptop) based flight planning (nobody going places seriously is writing out a plog by hand these days) and a lot of operational stuff so people can actually go somewhere.
In the USA, a new PPL can fly almost anywhere in the USA - because they have a simple unified system, with no Customs, no PPR, mostly H24 airports, one language, and one publication which has the airport details in a unified description. A European PPL needs to be more job-oriented if it is to serve the customer.
But if one was starting with a clean sheet, one would bring in a lot more instrument training, computer (laptop) based flight planning (nobody going places seriously is writing out a plog by hand these days) and a lot of operational stuff so people can actually go somewhere.
In the USA, a new PPL can fly almost anywhere in the USA - because they have a simple unified system, with no Customs, no PPR, mostly H24 airports, one language, and one publication which has the airport details in a unified description. A European PPL needs to be more job-oriented if it is to serve the customer.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on my experience of about 5 years ago I think the PPL syllabus should have much more emphasis on real world flight planning scenarios, examinations of exactly what weather conditions the completion of a VFR flight would or would not be safe under and a look at the practicalities of flying much longer distances and abroad.
Some of the things that I was not taught properly how to do during my PPL and had to be learnt later on; exactly how to use the NOTAMS system and what the different NOTAMS meant, how to file a flight plan, what the requirements were in terms of customs and police for flying abroad, how to find out that information, how to lean the aircraft properly, GPS and how it could be used and probably loads of others that I can't think of now but I've just sort of picked up along the way from PPRuNe and other instructors and pilots.
In terms of how we teach people to actually control and navigate the aircraft I don't think there is much wrong with the PPL I just think there could be much more emphasis on practical planning for likely post-PPL flights and giving people the knowledge and confidence to use their PPL in the real world.
Some of the things that I was not taught properly how to do during my PPL and had to be learnt later on; exactly how to use the NOTAMS system and what the different NOTAMS meant, how to file a flight plan, what the requirements were in terms of customs and police for flying abroad, how to find out that information, how to lean the aircraft properly, GPS and how it could be used and probably loads of others that I can't think of now but I've just sort of picked up along the way from PPRuNe and other instructors and pilots.
In terms of how we teach people to actually control and navigate the aircraft I don't think there is much wrong with the PPL I just think there could be much more emphasis on practical planning for likely post-PPL flights and giving people the knowledge and confidence to use their PPL in the real world.