Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by photofly »

Most of the PPL training fleet across the country doesn't have GPS: think of all those C150s and early 172s. So there would have to be a very radical re-equipping, for that to work.

I think most PPLs actually navigate with an iPad - how about that as an alternative?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5860
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

photofly wrote: Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:46 pm Most of the PPL training fleet across the country doesn't have GPS: think of all those C150s and early 172s. So there would have to be a very radical re-equipping, for that to work.

I think most PPLs actually navigate with an iPad - how about that as an alternative?
Absolutely navigating with a tablet running foreflight or an equivalent program is navigating with a GPS. Whether the student is looking at foreflight on his tablet or at the Garmin 430 the advantages and the challenges of using GPS as the primary navigation tool are the essentially the same.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4402
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by rookiepilot »

Then when the electrical system fails one day, naturally at night, forgot to charge the IPAD, pilot is dead.

I see many pilots program dual 430’s and their Ipad before severe clear short range VFR flights.

I don’t. Its VFR. Following the pretty magenta line ain’t required.

Look outside. Enjoy the view. Navigate.

One of the more interesting exercises I did for fun was a 250 NM CC, 1500 AGL, only using the map, watch and DR, calculating times. Its amazing how accurately it can be done.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by photofly »

Going back to the topic, playing this through in my head, what I can see happening is the PE conducts the remedial training with the candidate at the end of the flight test:

Well, Smedley, you passed, but got a two on the steep turns exercise. You can book another lesson with your instructor next week and I can sign your licence off in two weeks time when I'm back here, or, let's spend five minutes on steep turns now, then show me a better one, then I can sign your PPL off when we land. Which would you prefer?

Since that is the inevitable outcome, wouldn't it make sense to allow the candidate to repeat an exercise on which they scored a 2 right away, and skip the mucking about? They still keep the '2' but then no more nonsense about extra training.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5860
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

photofly wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 6:26 am Going back to the topic, playing this through in my head, what I can see happening is the PE conducts the remedial training with the candidate at the end of the flight test:

Well, Smedley, you passed, but got a two on the steep turns exercise. You can book another lesson with your instructor next week and I can sign your licence off in two weeks time when I'm back here, or, let's spend five minutes on steep turns now, then show me a better one, then I can sign your PPL off when we land. Which would you prefer?

Since that is the inevitable outcome, wouldn't it make sense to allow the candidate to repeat an exercise on which they scored a 2 right away, and skip the mucking about? They still keep the '2' but then no more nonsense about extra training.
As a PE my job is to test not train. I do not think you will get much support for this. In any case TC’s intent is to have the issue that caused the major error fixed permanently. For some errors/deviations it may be pretty simple but others would be more complex and require more extensive retraining to get to an acceptable level of competence.

This is a band aid to address the low standard required to pass the CPL flight test. Personally I support it as I see too many CPL graduates that simply are not good enough.

On option I do support is allowing a do over in the case of an obvious test induced brain cramp like which is allowed in PPC rides.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5919
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by digits_ »

Big Pistons Forever wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 7:32 am
photofly wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 6:26 am Going back to the topic, playing this through in my head, what I can see happening is the PE conducts the remedial training with the candidate at the end of the flight test:

Well, Smedley, you passed, but got a two on the steep turns exercise. You can book another lesson with your instructor next week and I can sign your licence off in two weeks time when I'm back here, or, let's spend five minutes on steep turns now, then show me a better one, then I can sign your PPL off when we land. Which would you prefer?

Since that is the inevitable outcome, wouldn't it make sense to allow the candidate to repeat an exercise on which they scored a 2 right away, and skip the mucking about? They still keep the '2' but then no more nonsense about extra training.
As a PE my job is to test not train. I do not think you will get much support for this. In any case TC’s intent is to have the issue that caused the major error fixed permanently. For some errors/deviations it may be pretty simple but others would be more complex and require more extensive retraining to get to an acceptable level of competence.
In which case the FI who caused the complex error in the first place, will be the one to judge if he fixed his errors. That's going to be effective...



Or, an FI's job is to train, not to test :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by photofly »

Big Pistons Forever wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 7:32 am
As a PE my job is to test not train. I do not think you will get much support for this.
Well I *know* beyond a doubt that's what's going to happen. Because other than those very very few unicorn PEs that are TC inspectors, all PE's are instructors, and they're mostly testing the students who trained at the flight school at which they instruct. And instructors love instructing! So the flight test will end, and the plane will take off again with the CFI (who just conducted the test) switching roles back to instructor, and signing off the <cough> extra five minutes of training. "Show me another steep turn, Smedley, you bished up the last one.... fabulous! you're done!" Whether it gets official support or not, that's the inevitable outcome. You might as well make it official.
In any case TC’s intent is to have the issue that caused the major error fixed permanently. For some errors/deviations it may be pretty simple but others would be more complex and require more extensive retraining to get to an acceptable level of competence.
Oh, I understand the *intent* well enough. But if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. To think this amendment could achieve the given intent embodies a misunderstanding about a student's journey to competence, which is never linear. Even a very-well trained "competent" pilot will occasionally make a major error: no amount of extra training prevents errors permanently - that requires a lot of time and practice. That's why you're allowed to pass with a limited number of major errors. It will never be possible to determine whether further training is actually required or not, merely by looking at a numeric score from 1-4 on any exercise.

Furthermore anyone who genuinely requires extensive training to get to an acceptable level of competence should never have been signed off in the first place, and if they were signed off, merely passing them back to be signed off again by the authority who already signed them off compounds the deficiency. The student who needs extensive retraining should be retested by a PE - that's what the score of '1' is for.

"I taught this student steep turns, I tested them on steep turns, I know they can carry out steep turns because I've watched them do them, over and over again, so I signed them out as competent on steep turns. Now you want me to do what... teach them steep turns again? But I already taught and tested them on steep turns and I know they can do steep turns, so what exactly are you asking me to do different this time??"

So this amendment can only result in a quick five-minutes-and-you're-done, on any exercise. At which point it becomes punitive on the student's wallet. So let the PE do the 5-minutes and be done with it.
digits_ wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 8:04 am In which case the FI who caused the complex error in the first place, will be the one to judge if he fixed his errors. That's going to be effective...
Well, quite.

To be frank, given that the student can ask the PE to conduct the extra training, I don't think I would bother raising any points over this change: it won't have any good effects, but the bad effects are pretty minimal, so perhaps it's better to shut up in case someone at TC comes up with an alternative that's a real horror.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5860
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

"I taught this student steep turns, I tested them on steep turns, I know they can carry out steep turns because I've watched them do them, over and over again, so I signed them out as competent on steep turns. Now you want me to do what... teach them steep turns again? But I already taught and tested them on steep turns and I know they can do steep turns, so what exactly are you asking me to do different this time??"

That’s where the option to repeat the exercise would be useful. It will often be obvious to the PE whether the poor performance is test-itis or a one off brain cramp; as apposed to a fundamental lack of skill ot knowledge. In Smedley”s case if he were to repeat the exercise they would probably do fine and we could move on, but that is not an option now.

One issue that is a real problem is instructors that recommend marginal students and then hope they pass.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5919
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by digits_ »

Big Pistons Forever wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:23 am One issue that is a real problem is instructors that recommend marginal students and then hope they pass.
That's only a problem if the examiner lets them pass.

You can't expect an instructor to keep witholding a recommend if a student has been paying for 100 - 200 - 300 ... hours and demands to do a flight test.
An examiner has much more tools to fail the candidate and make it clear they do not have the competence to pass the flight test.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5860
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

digits_ wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:31 am
Big Pistons Forever wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:23 am One issue that is a real problem is instructors that recommend marginal students and then hope they pass.
That's only a problem if the examiner lets them pass.

You can't expect an instructor to keep witholding a recommend if a student has been paying for 100 - 200 - 300 ... hours and demands to do a flight test.
An examiner has much more tools to fail the candidate and make it clear they do not have the competence to pass the flight test.
Absolutely not. The flight instructor is required to do a preflight test of all flight test items. If they do not meet the standard they should not be recommended, period. If an instructor recommended a candidate who was obviously unqualified I would take follow up action with the CFI and possibly TC.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by photofly »

Big Pistons Forever wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:53 am The flight instructor is required to do a preflight test of all flight test items. If they do not meet the standard they should not be recommended, period. If an instructor recommended a candidate who was obviously unqualified I would take follow up action with the CFI and possibly TC.
Agreed. So, why is TC dicking about with "this candidate scored a single '2' and obviously needs re-training before they qualify for a licence" nonsense?

Logically, it follows from TC's new position that any score of '2' on any exercise requires re-training, and if a candidate needs re-training they should never have been recommended for a flight test, and therefore follow up action against the instructor should be taken right away.

It's inconsistent firstly to accept an instructor's recommendation that a candidate is ready for a test, and secondly demand a candidate undergo re-training after a 2 without also requiring their recommending instructor to undergo remedial action - because the instructor clearly recommended an unqualified candidate.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by photofly »

Big Pistons Forever wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:23 am That’s where the option to repeat the exercise would be useful. It will often be obvious to the PE whether the poor performance is test-itis or a one off brain cramp; as apposed to a fundamental lack of skill ot knowledge. In Smedley”s case if he were to repeat the exercise they would probably do fine and we could move on, but that is not an option now.
That's barely different from what I suggested: if the candidate makes a major error they keep the score of '2' but repeats the exercise. If the repeat goes ok, the PE signs off on the "remedial training". If the repeat sucks, or the examiner thinks the error was due to a failure of understanding or instruction, the examiner sends the candidate back up with an instructor another day.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5919
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by digits_ »

Big Pistons Forever wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:53 am
digits_ wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:31 am
Big Pistons Forever wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:23 am One issue that is a real problem is instructors that recommend marginal students and then hope they pass.
That's only a problem if the examiner lets them pass.

You can't expect an instructor to keep witholding a recommend if a student has been paying for 100 - 200 - 300 ... hours and demands to do a flight test.
An examiner has much more tools to fail the candidate and make it clear they do not have the competence to pass the flight test.
Absolutely not. The flight instructor is required to do a preflight test of all flight test items. If they do not meet the standard they should not be recommended, period. If an instructor recommended a candidate who was obviously unqualified I would take follow up action with the CFI and possibly TC.
Right. But as you yourself have determined, that's not what happens in real life. The above situation would not happen either unless there was pressure from the CFI as well to recommend the student.

If a student takes a preflight test 10 times in a row, and on the 11th the stars align and he passes on the 11th try, then the instructor does not have to (can not?) hold him back and you'll get a 'well let's hope he passes' kind of situation.

As long as an FTU is a purely commercial operation, things like that will always happen. That only reinforces the need for a proper flight test structure, in which an examiner determines if somebody is worthy of a certain license, not the individual instructor(s). Especially not with a vague definition of 'more training'.

I actually find the exam structure pretty ok in Canada. It's the link that examiners work directly for FTUs sometimes instead of TC that make things a bit silly sometimes.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5860
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

photofly wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 1:11 pm
Big Pistons Forever wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:23 am That’s where the option to repeat the exercise would be useful. It will often be obvious to the PE whether the poor performance is test-itis or a one off brain cramp; as apposed to a fundamental lack of skill ot knowledge. In Smedley”s case if he were to repeat the exercise they would probably do fine and we could move on, but that is not an option now.
That's barely different from what I suggested: if the candidate makes a major error they keep the score of '2' but repeats the exercise. If the repeat goes ok, the PE signs off on the "remedial training". If the repeat sucks, or the examiner thinks the error was due to a failure of understanding or instruction, the examiner sends the candidate back up with an instructor another day.
Actually there is a pretty significant difference because there is no student training, coaching or student practice. For example loses 120 ft because he rushed into the maneuver with the airplane starting at 50 ft below the specified altitude although he makes a smooth recovery and finishes on target. You say show me that maneuver again and he flies it all well within the specified limits, 3 or even a 4 and on to the next maneuver.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by photofly »

In 9 out of 10 cases under the new rules where a candidate is required to receive remedial training because they got a ‘2’, that training will consist of nothing more than a demonstration by the student, which will be successful, and no extra “training” will occur or be needed:

“Ok so show me the steep turn that you fouled up”
<student demonstrates steep turn perfectly>
“Great. 4 out of 4. I have nothing to teach you. Let’s go home, and you owe me $250”.

Might as well do that in front of the PE and save everyone’s time.

So it is the same thing.

Now if the student can’t produce the goods the second time then sure, send them up with an instructor. But that will be one time out of 10. Why? Because they’ve already been judged as competent on all the manoeuvres by that same instructor you’re going to send them back to.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5919
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by digits_ »

TC just sent me the following email:
Good day,


Thank you for your contribution to NPA 2022-008 for Low Impact Amendments and the Codification of Exemptions. Your comment has been taken into consideration, and we have decided to remove the proposed amendments to Standard 421 in relation to limiting the number of “2” assessments from this proposal.



This proposed amendment to Standard 421 will require further analysis and consultation with industry partners. It will be re-assigned to a future regulatory proposal, which will undergo the full regulatory process (i.e., Notice of Proposed Amendments, publication in Canada Gazette, Part II and II). You will then get an opportunity to review the actual wording of the amendment as well as the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that supports it.



Thank you again for your feedback.
Did I just participate in changing the history of the Canadian Aviation Regulations?

Thanks for bringing this to our attention photofly!
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by photofly »

I am tearfully proud at the small but significant role I was able to play in enabling you to participate in civic society in this meaningful way.

Well done.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

Post by AirFrame »

rookiepilot wrote: Sun Oct 30, 2022 6:36 pm Then when the electrical system fails one day, naturally at night, forgot to charge the IPAD, pilot is dead.
Nonsense.

Most of us, and most new pilots, are flying with multiple GPS units capable of navigating themselves out of trouble. Cell phone, iPad, even my watch has a GPS in it and the ability to navigate. Plus the handheld GPS mounted on the panel makes four total, all with independent battery backups. Five or six if my passenger has a phone and/or iPad with them.

ALL of those would have to fail for there to be an issue. Or all three of the GPS/GLONASS/BAIDU(sp?) satellite networks would have to go down simultaneously to render them all ineffective... Which hasn't happened to me yet, although I suppose it's possible.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”