[David-aviator]

I am not an active CFI but I do keep the certificate current because the renewal course is so interesting and instructive every two years. It is good stuff for anyone.

The current philosophy on instructing and learning to be a pilot advocated by the FAA is quite different than it was when I learned to fly a long time ago. And for good reason - pilots still do dumb things in airplanes and some of the NTSB reports reflect it. Not all accidents are pilot caused but far too many are. The emphasis on risk management and decision making skills is well taken.

I have a problem though with the current FAA philosophy. It is too complex and psychologically deep for the real world. Clearly it was conceived by PHD's and I wonder how many of them are aviators.

Anyway, I open a discussion on the subject if anyone is interested. What follows is a critique I sent to Gleim (they asked for it) on the FITS lesson of the renew course.

The concepts of teaching and learning presented in this lesson are extremely complex and not readily understood by the average person without 4 or 6 years formal education focusing on the subject. The entire concept of FITS and scenario based training is created by PHD's but are they also pilots? Do they understand the need of a student to have total confidence in his basic piloting skills to be a safe pilot? The de-emphasis of basic piloting skills is trouble some. And so is the fuzzy grading of performance. How does one tell a student his evaluation of a just totally screwed up maneuver is not correct and his performance is not up to standards or acceptable? Whatever those standards are today.

I was trained at a different time when piloting skill standards were clearly identified and if the student did not meet those standards, he was told so perhaps once or twice and shown how to do it right, and if an adjustment was not made his training was over. How does an instructor get that message across today?

I read the NTSB reports and understand the need for better risk management and decision making training. But that is a very difficult undertaking considering all the economic and time constraints of learning to fly.

There ought to be a separate course of study on risk management and good decision making from actual hands on flight instruction. To integrated both subjects at the beginning level and expect a complete pilot in such a short time frame as is depicted in beginning training courses is not realistic. To talk of risk management and decision making skills when a student can not fly straight and level won't work IMHO. And if the student can not fly straight and level, he will have no confidence or be self deceived into believing his performance is ok. In either case, he is not a safe pilot. And if he is not a safe pilot in terms of his skill level, he will never assess risk properly or make good decisions.

The process of training under the current philosophy of integration of risk management and decision making skills and piloting skills is entirely too complex. It would make more sense if it were broken down into separate units and then integrated once the pilot knew he had the basic skills to be a safe pilot. Not everyone has the skill or psychological make up to fly an airplane no matter how much training he receives.

 

[pierre smith]

I agree David..

...and I only use my CFI for Bi-ennials and transition training. I'm old school like you and the FAA has made basic training such a PITA with all the signoffs and so on, just to solo a guy.

I like to see a student quickly become a good 'stick', know how to fly correctly, slo-flight, stalls and usually spins although they're not required, I encouraged them., and crosswind landings.

Decision making skills should be taught later, as when beginning cross-countries...gas, weather, detours, etc.

Best,

 

[DGlaeser]

An active CFI perspective...

I'm a pretty active part-time CFI - doing over 200 hrs of instruction/yr the last few years at a Cessna Pilot Center. I agree that the way the FITS material is presented by the FAA is 'less than ideal'

I've been doing most of what the spirit of FITS is trying to achieve for a long time. Right from the start of training I ask the student "Well, is it OK to go flying today?" Of course at the start they aren't sure how to respond, so I explain how I decide if it is OK or not. Early on it's mostly about the weather, but as time goes on we talk about risks associated with attitudes, physiology, maintenance, regulations., etc The discussions are correlated to what we will be doing that day - the 'normal' preflight material. The final decision on whether to fly is theirs (I reserve the right to override of course ). It's just a part of our normal preflight, so it's no big deal when we start cross-countries or night flying. I always keep it positive - explaining what we're going to do to minimize or mitigate whatever risks we discuss. Sometimes we discuss why it's such a good idea NOT to go flying I've never had a student, or any other pilot for that matter, put off by these discussions.
By doing it from the start, and as part of (almost) every flight, hopefully it becomes part of their normal thinking process. That's the plan anyway...

Pierre has it right about all the signoffs...

 

[JordanGrant]

A dissenting opinion

David, I'll take the bait... ;>

I am NOT yet a CFI (although I intend to become one later this year) so I'm not familiar with the FAA's FITS curriculum. I HAVE been an Air Force instructor (about 1000 hours of instruction in the T-38) and I've recently acquired the instructor rating in the F-15E, so I'm sure my perspective is somewhat different. As an AF instructor at all levels, that risk management and decision making stuff is a key part of every sortie, including the first one in the aircraft. We always just call it "airmanship", the catch-all category for everything that isn't related to a specific maneuver. I can't evaluate the FITS program, but I wholeheartedly endorse the concept of teaching decision making skills parallel to any new pilot's technical skill development.

To talk of risk management and decision making skills when a student can not fly straight and level won't work IMHO. And if the student can not fly straight and level, he will have no confidence or be self deceived into believing his performance is ok. In either case, he is not a safe pilot. And if he is not a safe pilot in terms of his skill level, he will never assess risk properly or make good decisions.

I respectfully disagree and think the reality is actually quite the opposite. If a new student properly learns the risk assessment skills up front, he or she will understand that they are "not good" (due to their inexperience). That realization is what will keep them alive and the airplane un-bent while that experience is gained and the stick/rudder stuff improves. The complete opposite can happen if the judgement part is not emphasized. A new guy can learn how to execute the technical parts of flying very well and THAT will lead to over-confidence, poor decisionmaking, and hurting or scaring himself by going too far too fast, or just plain being dumb. "Hey, I just got my PPL and 40 hours under my belt. Now I can do all the stuff that these other pilots can do!" A pilot with good judgment knows that his fresh PPL is just a license to learn.

I'm no safety guru, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that poor judgment kills many times more pilots (and people in general, for that matter) than inadequate stick and rudder skills. When training pilots, we can't miss any opportunity to teach to those subjects.

Cheers,

 

[TCONROY]

My .02

I give about 500 hrs of dual every year and would like to weigh in on this issue. Now this is only my opinion and my way of doing things. I feel it is very safe and prepares my students for real-world flying. A problem I see with a lot of CFI's these days is they don't really have a lot of 'real-world' flying experience, as if they are enclosed in the CFI bubble which is following each and every item in the AIM to a 'T' and staying within a 100 miles of their home airport. I've flown across the country multiple times, in both very good and very bad weather. I've had engine failures and students attempt to kill me on numerous occasions. These experiences have shaped my ability to effectively teach my students how to make the right/safe decision for themselves.

It seems to me flight training used to consist of a race to solo and then try to finish within the required 40 hours. I think this logic is flawed. My goal is to utilize each moment we are in the aircraft for training and it will take as much time as it takes. I think my average student solo's in 15-20 hours. But they can do a lot more than take-off and land the aircraft. They understand and are able to perform stalls, steep turns, slow flight, ground ref maneuvers, and steep turns. They understand the affects of wind on ground track, aircraft systems, emergency procedures, etc. They may not be able to consistently perform steep turns without loosing more than 100 feet or stay within 15 degrees heading on a power-on stall, but they are darn close. Having a somewhat in depth knowledge base to work from allows them to reliably and consistently evaluate their (and the aircrafts) ability and fitness for flight. If the vacuum pump or alternator fails on their solo, my students know what to do. My goal is to prepare them to fly the aircraft solo and deal with any situation that could arise (it doesn't matter that its only 3 take-offs and landings at that airport). A lot could go wrong during that first (or any) solo, and I want them to be prepared.

I constantly hear from older pilots "wow, it took them 15 hrs to solo!! thats crazy." I soloed in a very short amount of time and felt ill prepared compared to the proficiency level of my students. The goal is to prepare student pilots with the tools they need to make effective decisions that will lead to them being safe private pilots when they pass their checkride.

Discussing risk management and decision making from the very first lesson has been very effective for me. They may not be able to effectively control the airplane but they don't need to, yet. What they need is the ability to take a look at the big picture of getting into an aircraft and leaving the ground and making the go/no-go decision.

I've seen aircraft return from a cross-country with less than 2 gallons of usable fuel (in a 7gph aircraft). That tells me their instructor failed them. Yes, it could have just been a bone-head move by the pilot, but if certain decision making/attitudes are stressed enough from day 1 of training, it becomes ingrained in the student that it must be done before each and every flight. That means manually dipping the tanks and calculating how much time they have to fly (minus the FAA or personal reserve minimum)
My RV-7A will be my first owned aircraft. I've vowed to not fall into the 'owner complacency' group that never checks actual fuel quantity, does a pre-flight, or uses a checklist. I've seen so many friends fall into this trap and its lead to accidents/incidence and has sometimes been fatal.

Whatever method you use to teach your students, just remember that they will be out on their own someday. The more decision making skills you can convey to them, the safer they will be for their own passengers.

 

[scard]

This thread re-kindles my desire to continue a path that I started to get my CFI. Keep 'em coming. It seems that I fall into the "modern" camp...

 

[David-aviator]

The feed back here from up to date and active primary instructors is good information. It illustrates how quickly one can become dated in this business.

I am no stranger to the concepts put forth by FITS, many were introduced by major airlines 15+ years ago including scenario type training. But it has just filtered down to general aviation since 2002. From my perspective, there is some uncertainty on how to incorporated it into primary flight instruction after many years of not doing it - there was no such guidance or concept when I last soloed a student. At a major air line all Captains are considered full time instructors and CFI renewal was automatic by simply walking into a FSDO with an ID card and evidence of a recent check ride. That privilege is a far cry from the day to day service performed by CFI's at the primary level. It is a totally different world.

I received the following response from aviation editor, Jamie Beckett, at Gleim on the critique submitted on the the FITS lesson. It does clarify the matter in terms of where it came from and how it can be used in other than its original purpose to facilitate transition training to complex aircraft. That is most helpful in comprehending the matter.

David;

Thank you for your feedback on Study Unit 2, FAA Industry Training
Standards (FITS), of Gleim's Flight Instructor Refresher Course (FIRC).
Keep in mind that this material is not designed for the average person, it
is intended for CFIs only. Likewise, FITS is not designed to be employed
as a primary training method. It can be adapted to that, certainly. But
FITS was designed by the FAA and industry leaders to address the training
requirements of pilots transitioning to technically advanced aircraft.

Overall this study unit introduces a mindset and a method of teaching. It
is not a mandate, but it is important for CFIs to have any insight into
what the FAA is thinking and which direction their instructional efforts
and documentation are headed in.

I think you will find that FITS outlines an absolutely appropriate means
of instruction when transitioning a pilot who has flown relatively low
power, fixed gear aircraft into a higher power, glass-cockpit machine with
retractable gear. Which is not to say that you have not adapted to that
task during your career with great success. FITS is presented in order to
give CFIs who have not identified a workable method, a viable option for
consideration.

I hope this response is helpful to you. If I can offer you any
assistance in the future, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

Thank you, have a great day, and fly safely!


Jamie Beckett, CFII/MEI/AGI
Aviation Editor
Gleim Publications, Inc.
4201 NW 95th Blvd
Gainesville, FL 32604

Hours: Mon-Fri- 8am-7pm, Sat 9am-2pm EDT

Thank you for using and recommending Gleim. Please visit and direct
others to the Gleim Home Page at http://www.gleim.com/aviation.