Low time PPL's new to complex types

[Pilot DAR]

From a discussion elsewhere about a particular accident, I made the following post. This theme is not new to me, and I have seen it from many sides over the years. It's probably worthy of some thought, particularly as GA airplanes are becoming much more advanced and capable....

Though I have no direct knowledge of this accident, nor the pilot's skills, the discussion brings to my mind the general topic of sub-standard [skills] PPL's. I'm thinking that this might become a "Private Flying" sticky, we'll see...

In my time doing advanced GA "type" training for PPL owners new to their advanced type, I have clear recall of three PPL's, who after more than a dozen hours in each case jut were no up to my minimum standard. The first element of my challenge has been that I am not a certified instructor, and the Canadian regulations did not require that I be, as as a CPL, I am entitled to give float training, which was what two of the three (C 185 amphibian, and Lake Amphibian) were, (the third was familiarization training on a Bellanca Viking). So, in each case the pilot came to me as a PPL, who I would have presumed had demonstrated the basic skills for that privilege. In all three cases, after that amount of training to the pilot, and after consulting mentor instructors I know, I determined that I lacked the time or technique to give the pilot what they needed, and I stopped, without providing the requested "letter to the insurer". Sadly, in each case, the PPL flew that airplane away anyway - I had no power to stop them, they just had no insurance - a severe attitude indicator on its own!

I have never heard that any of them were ever involved in an accident, so apparently, for whatever amount of flying they did, they were good enough to survive. Does that mean that my standards are too high? They did earn a PPL by demonstrating the minimum skills in a "simple" trainer. But now they were flying a complex single GA type, which was much more capable and demanding.

The pilots who have mentored me over the decades characteristically demanded high performance from me. In hindsight, I can see that they were teaching me what they knew I needed to know, rather than teaching a syllabus or to pass a test. I can now see a difference between being actually mentored, and simply being put through a program - it can be a very big difference! Very few students or new PPL's would know the difference, and indeed some newer instructors, who are eager to satisfy their employer would think to challenge the norms. Ultimately, this comes down to the responsibility of the PPL student to seek out and demand training to a high standard - once they figure out who can provide it.

In training I started last fall for a new PPL on the new to him very advanced Cessna amphibious floatplane, it was obviously well outside his norms. His attitude was excellent, and he had no resistance to my requiring a greater skill set, but I worry that his PPL training did not prepare him for what could be differences he would likely encounter with more advanced types. After 7 hours in three sessions of so far land only, we're not even half way where he needs to be for me to send him solo on wheels, let alone on the water.

I think about these low time/experience in complex GA airplane accidents, particularly where there may have been a dependence (for lack of skill or capacity) on cockpit automation. I'm not sure that we're pointed the right way on this. I recently rewatched "children of the magenta", which can easily be found on YouTube. I wholly agree that when things start going bad, particularly in VMC, turning off the automation, rather than depending upon it to assist you is probably the better thing!

[BEagle]

EASA and UK CAA regulations are quite specific. Pilot who want to fly a new (to them) aeroplane must receive either 'familiarisation' if it's a similar SEP variant (which does not need to be conducted by an instructor), or if it has a new feature (e.g. VP prop, retractable landing gear, EFIS, electric trim, autopilot etc.), they must receive 'differences training' from an instructor qualified on the aeroplane. In either case they may not fly the aeroplane as PIC unless the person giving familiarisation signs the pilots personal flying logbook.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've seen a few qualified PPLs who, for one reason or another, just didn't come up to my standards. A common reason may be that they originally qualified but then never did enough flying to properly consolidate that, another is that they reached the standard required to pass a PPL skill test or checkride, regarded that as the peak of their achievements and then happily slid downwards. Whatever the reason, you're quite right to hold your ground, and be open as to why you're doing so. In my experience however, the lower the standards of the pilot you're training, the more resistant they usually are to being required to up their game.

I would advise however complete openness, say what you think's needed, and why. Be open when somebody isn't improving, and what you think needs to be done about it. And don't be shy of simply saying "you need to go spend quality time with a proper instructor, who is qualified to work on your basic flying skills". I know you're an experienced and capable pilot, but that's not the same as having been trained to actively address missing basic flying skills.

G

[Russell Gulch]

Complex. Now there's a complex question!
Wobbly prop? Easy to understand.
Wobbly gear? Easy to understand.
Turbocharging? Easy to understand.
I would suggest that more & more future crashes/incidents are going to be caused by lack of understanding of avionics and glass panels, and lack of appreciation when to pull the BRS on your 0.5M microlight.

[Pilot DAR]

I would suggest that more & more future crashes/incidents are going to be caused by lack of understanding of avionics and glass panels

Understanding autopilot to be included in avionics, I very much agree. But, as stated so well in the "Children of the Magenta" video, it's layers of complexity. With the reality that when things get busy/stressful/task saturated, relying on avionics may be adding workload for the pilot, rather than reducing it as would be intuitive. And, when the avionics does no perform the intended function ('could be finger trouble), the workload may go much higher, or the opportunity for an un noticed error goes way up.

There have been times for me when things have started to cascade going wrong, and I have paused and wondered to myself, is this the moment of pilot high workload/distraction/task saturation that others will read about later in the report of my accident? If the answer is in any way a yes, then I need to shed workload etc. So far, it has worked. A number of times, I have turned off, or ignored the tech.

Older example for me; I'm VFR over the Baltic sea off the coast of Finland in a 182 amphibian, full Garmin glass, and steamgauge, all databases completely up to date, and a set of Jeppeson books as backup. I'm at 700 feet in the skuz, turning around to go 30 miles back to Kemi, my alternate. Kemi has just closed, and Oulu has accepted my request for special VFR, so we're going on in the skuz to Oulu, which is reporting marginal VFR in heavy rain. I'm at 700 feet over the water. I enter Oulu into the GTN 750 as my new destination, instant magenta line somewhat off to my left, and I set a 50 mile scale on the glass PFD for orientation. Every time I see a magenta line, I think of the Children of the magenta video, so I stop and think: Here I have a line to follow right to the airport VFR, but it will take me on shore... I'm at 700 feet, and I'm looking at windmills. I will not be crossing onshore toward windmills at 700 feet, and I'm not climbing into the clagg. The PFD is not displaying the obstacles at all, clear screen to Oulu. But I see windmills. I was not familiar enough with the GTN 750 to program in an instrument approach. But, I was familiar enough to have the owner, right seat, to open up the Jepp to Oulu, find me the localizer frequency, and fly over the water to intercept the localizer, upon which I was confident to not encounter windmills. intercept the glideslope and land, no problem. My lack of familiarity with the tech aboard: When you select the map scale from 25 to 50NM, it declutters obstacles (and does not tell you that it did). I learned that the next day when I read a few hundred pages into the Garmin FMS. My fault for not knowing, Garmin's fault for not indicating an automated declutter, nor suggesting a MOCA for the magenta line it painted. I reduced my automation dependence, and went to a more simple system I understood, which was less likely to induce an error.

More recent example, while training a new pilot in the new to him 182 amphibian (a different one), but again, all retrofit glass, I'm training him forced approaches. In the 182 amphibian, they're rather steep, It's a situation of get trained, and get used to it - they work fine, if you fly them right! However, all the way down: "DESCENT RATE PULL UP!" repeats. And I'm saying to him, "do not pull up, do not pull up!". The descent rate value that triggers this warning is probably appropriate for the landplane 182, but not a floatplane. In this case, while teaching, I had no choice but to tell him to ignore it, I could not find any cancel for it. When flying by myself in it, I could turn it off - with the avionics master switch!

I very much dislike having to train pilots to ignore, or not use the systems available to ease their flying duties, but sometimes it just ends up being the better way to handle things. Make everything more simple, back to what you understand well, and focus on doing what you know. There may be more actual doing, but what's happening is only what you're doing!

[chevvron]

The late Gary Numan learnt to fly on Cessna 150/152s and a soon as he he could he bought a Cessna 182 thinking it would fly the same.
First takeoff he was in coarse pitch and barely made it off the runway (runway 19 at Blackbushe)

[Pilot DAR]

First takeoff he was in coarse pitch

Horrible performance is bad of course, what is worse in that situation would be the likely engine damage from detonation. I've done the testing, an O-470 operating at 28 inches MP, and probably 2000 or so RPM will be a very unhappy engine! I've seen holes melted in pistons from less. That is why, for all certified airplanes, moving all the engine control associated with power forward, will produce the greatest power, and least risk of engine damage (manual turbo engines notwithstanding). Know your plane, get some training...

[EXDAC]

FAA has recognized that "complexity" is not a simple as flaps. controllable prop, and retractable gear. Now a pilot needs no experience of any of those to have the aeronautical experience to be eligible for a commercial single engine airplane rating.

I doubt that anyone could be completely familiar with the capabilities and traps of a TAA in the required 10 hours. Lack of familiarity with a TAA can bite you as hard, or much harder, than mistakes with gear or prop.

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by Pilot DAR

That is why, for all certified airplanes, moving all the engine control associated with power forward, will produce the greatest power, and least risk of engine damage (manual turbo engines notwithstanding). Know your plane, get some training...

Certainly not true at high density altitude. Improper leaning at high density altitude can make the difference between a safe departure and a broken airplane.

[Pilot DAR]

Certainly not true at high density altitude. Improper leaning at high density altitude can make the difference between a safe departure and a broken airplane.

Agreed. 'Thinking sea level - know your plane!

[Prop swinger]

Originally Posted by chevvron

The late Gary Numan learnt to fly on Cessna 150/152s and a soon as he he could he bought a Cessna 182 thinking it would fly the same.
First takeoff he was in coarse pitch and barely made it off the runway (runway 19 at Blackbushe)

I'm sure he would be surprised to hear of his demise.

[Smalahove]

Originally Posted by Prop swinger

I'm sure he would be surprised to hear of his demise.

It was his brother who passed away suddenly.

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by Smalahove

It was his brother who passed away suddenly.

Apologies; thank you.

[Pilot DAR]

My post from the A&CC forum post:

Which is interesting because on EFIS , there a huge difference between models and even within the same model over the years. , some previously controlled by side buttons now touch screens and tens of new functions added , of which over half you will never use .

This is my concern. I think back to the late days of LORAN C, and transition to early days of GPS, I was ferrying all kinds of complex singles for an English company. Each airplane had a different navigation system, and the only functions which were universal were On/Off, and the "Direct" button. Otherwise, they were all different, and required a good read of the flight manual supplement, and erasing what you just learned about the other system. And, that was only nav, for VFR flying. Now, we have very much more complex and integrated systems, which include autopilot, and more to the point, may interfere with the pilot control of the airplane in the background (Garmin ESP). And, more, more to the point, these systems are being retrofitted into legacy types, which may already have other modifications which the avionics installer has not considered as a possible source of system conflict.

There is an exponential burden on pilots and owners to understand these systems, and their integration in the airplane. In my opinion, "instructors" in the GA/PPL world are more commonly primary skills instructors, and their in depth experience with advanced avionics may be incomplete. So, getting a "Instructor checkout" in a complex type with advanced avionics could be incomplete - and the PPL owner does not know what they do not know.

This situation, with very advanced avionics in GA types is diverging from "good" in presenting pilots with task intense operation, competent training is hard to assure, and the airplane is more capable of taking the pilot into more demanding conditions - with artificial confidence.

[Jim59]

It’s not just aeroplanes where the electronics are getting very (excessively?) complex. My glider is getting a new variometer / nav system after the old one broke after 19 years. The new manual is 129 pages of very terse guidance and probably 100 to 200 user-customisable options which can change the look and feel of what is displayed. Getting into a different glider with the same instrument it may seem very different.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The fundamental problem is that PPL pilot training syllabuses were designed in the 1950's and adapted from WW2 military training. This is not inherently bad in that the foundation hands and feet skills are still as applicable as ever, however what is missing is a system for effectively using modern cockpit technology. This is much more than buttonolgy it is an inflight decision cycle aided by technology. This has to start with defining what information a pilot wants for each stage of a flight and is equipment agnostic. A critical element is understanding when and how to step down the technology level (eg declutter the screen) when the technology is working against the pilot not for them. Finally instruction has to embed a rolling gross error check into every interaction with the technology ( I used the term TLAR, That Looks About Right)

For example. When I ask the PPL how he is going to program his GPS for a trip I usually hear "Direct to" or "I will put these waypoints in the flight plan page". What I would suggest he should say is that after referencing weather, airspace, terrain, and aircraft performance my lateral and track will be this. To get that, the lateral track should look something like this. I will then decide on altitudes based on wind and terrain and then enter the appropriate waypoints into my navigator. Finally I will do a TLAR check for each leg. Instead of going straight to the how I am starting in an organized way with the what and the why, before getting to the how.

With respect to autopilots I am a FMA (Flight Mode Annunciator) doctrinarian with my students. That is every change of mode MUST BE verified with the appropriate annunciation. I also insist that climbs are only done in IAS or FLC mode and descents are only done in vs or vnav mode.

[Kemble Pitts]

Originally Posted by BEagle

EASA and UK CAA regulations are quite specific. Pilot who want to fly a new (to them) aeroplane must receive either 'familiarisation' if it's a similar SEP variant (which does not need to be conducted by an instructor), or if it has a new feature (e.g. VP prop, retractable landing gear, EFIS, electric trim, autopilot etc.), they must receive 'differences training' from an instructor qualified on the aeroplane. In either case they may not fly the aeroplane as PIC unless the person giving familiarisation signs the pilots personal flying logbook.

Of course, 'familiarisation' can be done by self study.

Whilst there is then nobody else to sign the pilot's log-book, maybe it would be a good discipline for the pilot to sign their own logbook to 'self certify' that they've done the necessary background work - I'd not thought of that before. It actually aligns with what we had to do when learning on the Tiger Moth when we had to sign to say we understood the 'petrol, oil and ignition systems of the DH82a'.

We did the same thing for prop swinging but that was over-signed by the instructor. I have my uncles wartime logbook and he self-certified his competence for prop swinging.

Maybe there is little new under the sun (in principle)!

[EXDAC]

When I added the GPS 175 to my airplane I spent a lot time getting familiar with the features I intended to use and how those features interacted with my G3X Touch system. Each system was well documented but, in my opinion, the documentation on how the two systems interacted was inadequate.

I wrote nothing in my pilot log book but I did write an AFM supplement, illustrated with screen captures, that documented much of what I had learned. There are several CAUTION notes to remind me, and any future owner, of the traps I had found.

[Pilot DAR]

This has to start with defining what information a pilot wants for each stage of a flight

This, to me, is an important, and more broad theme. At the point where the pilot lines up at the end of the runway to take off, if not the major part of the flight, at least the first few minutes should be thought through; "what do I want this airplane to do with me in it for the next phase of this flight?". From that, there should be, as BPF points out, a TLAR which can look ahead for the next minute or so. That is the pilot flying the plane, rather than the other way around.

We have skill and judgement, they are different. The skill is; "Can my hands and feet make this plane to that [smoothly]?". The judgement is: "Is this airplane safely capable of doing X under these conditions, and with the skill I'm able to apply to doing it?". It take a measure of both to fly safely.

If you know that airplane can do it, but you can't get it right, that's learning and practice, which is fine, as long as it has a safety margin around it, the plan to step back if needed, and perhaps some instruction/oversight. If you don't know if the airplane is capable, then that's research and instruction first, then skill building.

But once the skill and judgement are in appropriate balance for what you're flying and where, then you should always have a TLAR going in your mind. Whatever controls you have, how will you use them to make the plane do the next thing properly, and once initiated, is it working?

Many times over the decades, I have flown another of a type I was familiar with. I remember the first time in the late '70's, I rented a private 172, to find that it had an HSI, and DME, neither of which I had seen before, nor had instruction on. Yep, I did a bunch of knob twisting, and button pushing, while in stable VFR flight, and a lot of asking myself if TLAR. I sort of figured it out, and never relied upon that imperfect knowledge. When I moved into right seat in the twins, it was not the first time I had seen these (which was helpful) and my Captains helped me learn properly. But TLAR was key.... What did I think that the airplane should do next, and was that happening?

So, imagine my surprise a bit over a year ago to be stall testing the 182 amphibian to have the pitch trim roll itself full nose down on its own, annunicated with an "Autopilot engaged" audio chime - Anti TLAR! I learned, and did not like what I learned! I was now a high time CPL, flying an airplane more complex than I understood it to be!