Flight Training in the Greater Toronto Area

[digits_]

I find it mildly distressing that "proper/advanced training" was considered regular training a generation or 2 ago. Now a student can get a PPL without ever having flown into a grass strip (let alone solo), but requires 5 hours of instrument flight time.

I find it really depends on the area, both within canada and internationally. It's interesting to see what the flavour of the decade is.

The most pertinent differences I found are:
- spin training: allowed / encouraged / discouraged
- grass/gravel/mix landings
- crosswind landings: encouraged / heavily limited
- forced landings: actually touching down on the runway vs go-arounds at 200 ft
- attitude towards cross country: as minimal as possible / as much as possible
- border crossings

[PilotDAR]

Now a student can get a PPL without ever having flown into a grass strip (let alone solo), but requires 5 hours of instrument flight time.

Ooo, Ooo, I know this one!!!

'Cause TC noticed that pilots were dying, spinning or CFIT out of IMC conditions into the ground. Pilots weren't dying in grass runways, it was just airplanes getting wrecked!

Yes, practice forced landings to a touchdown! I've done and trained many, only a go around at 200' if my candidate had demonstrated decent actual forced landing landing skills to me already, and the PFL training had a higher altitude objective. During the whole time I did my helicopter training, I never did a full on autorotation. 'Not permitted due to too many accidents. Years later, I've still never done one. I've ridden through a few as PNF, but never done one. I guess they figure that I won't die if I have to actually do one, but I've never proven I could save the helicopter too!

Cross country... well, it is a big country, so if students/new PPL's cross about half of it once or twice, I think that's good!

[Bug_Stomper_01]

Any updates on this topic? Have a few licensed rotary customers looking to do their fixed wing cpl. thanks

[khedrei]

I thought with these flight that they'd teach you a proper/advanced training not just the bare minimum.

They may, and up to their skill capabilities, but it's not in the "quote" they'll give you, and the farther you want training beyond the TC curriculum, the more you challenge their training capabilities - which should certainly be done! But doesn't always result in the product you want.

I think "training beyond the TC curriculum" and "base minimum" are not mutually exclusive. I've always had my students do soft field's into actual grass fields (albeit, not THAT soft) and short/obstacle into strips with short/obstacle. Whether I do this at a small field or at the paved airport makes no difference time wise. Same thing for forced approaches. Why not just go into a grass strip and land?

I find it mildly distressing that "proper/advanced training" was considered regular training a generation or 2 ago. Now a student can get a PPL without ever having flown into a grass strip (let alone solo), but requires 5 hours of instrument flight time.

Even better, you can obtain an instrument rating without ever having been in a cloud, or low vis. AND (although highly unlikely) without ever having spoken to ATC. And you can also teach a bunch of people an IFR rating as well still without doing any of the above.

I think some IMC time should be required.

[photofly]

Even better, you can obtain an instrument rating without ever having been in a cloud, or low vis. AND (although highly unlikely) without ever having spoken to ATC. And you can also teach a bunch of people an IFR rating as well still without doing any of the above.

I think some IMC time should be required.

Aside from hurt feelz, is there evidence that accidents are occurring because of this perceived lack? If you want the government to add extra restrictions to flying, that would help.

[rookiepilot]

Questions for flight instructors / FTU’s, at least for the CPL / IFR portion:

Have you taken students into 1 SM visibility— the legal U/C limit?
Have you done a SVFR approach with a student in controlled airspace?
Have you landed with a student to the aircraft demonstrated maximum crosswind limits, and beyond?
Landed in 25-30 knot gusting winds?
Flown dual into severe night haze near water, still well within legal VFR?
Taught holds and approaches in actual, rough air IMC?
Taught approaches under the hood at cruise speed? (At least 100 knots)
Taught recovery from unusual attitudes under the hood, using full panel, then partial panel?
Taught in actual IMC with multiple frequency changes in short order for both nav and com?
Taught while getting updated weather enroute via com, and amending a flight plan in the air?
Taught how to prepare for and then cross the border, and how to amend arrival time with US customs?
Not theory. Doing all of the above.

————

I don’t care what is legally required.

This is a short list of what is needed to even begin to be safe as a private pilot flying safely CC (especially in IMC), and not just as a future flap operator and checklist reader.

[khedrei]

Even better, you can obtain an instrument rating without ever having been in a cloud, or low vis. AND (although highly unlikely) without ever having spoken to ATC. And you can also teach a bunch of people an IFR rating as well still without doing any of the above.

I think some IMC time should be required.

Aside from hurt feelz, is there evidence that accidents are occurring because of this perceived lack? If you want the government to add extra restrictions to flying, that would help.

I dont know if data for that is available anywhere. It would be tough to trace back loss of control IMC accidents to the amount of IFR in cloud training or how much time these flights actually spent in the clouds.

I was mainly pointing out the lack of requirements being surprising. You could use a similar argument for the lack of requirement of ATC communication. I dont think we have data on how many pilots lack radio communication skills.

To answer rookiepilot, I generally do more than half of those with my students, but not necessarily all of them. Some students have different goals and although I try to challenge everyone with real world conditions, I also try to give healthy knowledge of their limits.

I dont quite understand why one would do an approach at cruise speeds...?

I also don't even know how to update US customs on the arrival time other than on the phone. Only crossed a couple times and we were on time. Will ATC do it? Cause I tried it in Canada when I was late coming home and ATC said no. This motivated them to toss the plane when I did arrive..

I do like the list and think most are great to teach but not necessarily to everyone.

To your list I would add "approach to minimums which would just barely get us out of actual IMC, or not get us out and go land at a different airport."

[photofly]

Even better, you can obtain an instrument rating without ever having been in a cloud, or low vis. AND (although highly unlikely) without ever having spoken to ATC. And you can also teach a bunch of people an IFR rating as well still without doing any of the above.

I think some IMC time should be required.

Aside from hurt feelz, is there evidence that accidents are occurring because of this perceived lack? If you want the government to add extra restrictions to flying, that would help.

I dont know if data for that is available anywhere. It would be tough to trace back loss of control IMC accidents to the amount of IFR in cloud training or how much time these flights actually spent in the clouds.

I was mainly pointing out the lack of requirements being surprising. You could use a similar argument for the lack of requirement of ATC communication. I dont think we have data on how many pilots lack radio communication skills.

I think toughening up rules “just because”, isn’t a great idea. Let’s have solid data and a good basis for believing that there’s an actual safety of flight problem to solve, before we pile on on regulation. In this area, and in others. Saying the data is “tough to get” doesn’t let you off the need to get that data.

I’m not sure I see the parallel with communications skills.

[rookiepilot]

You could use a similar argument for the lack of requirement of ATC communication. I dont think we have data on how many pilots lack radio communication skills.

I dont quite understand why one would do an approach at cruise speeds...?

I also don't even know how to update US customs on the arrival time other than on the phone. Only crossed a couple times and we were on time. Will ATC do it?

1. Thats brutal. Everyone here says Ottawa Terminal is busy airspace, but flying into NY center or approach without radio skills is a good way to get yelled at. (I’ve heard this happen to others on the air) They are EXTREMELY fast, extremely busy and expect everyone to know what they are saying, airspace rules and where they are going. Uhhhh, ahhhh, pauses aren’t tolerated.

2. Cause its much harder. Do an ILS at 100- 110 right to 200, no flaps, and its a snap at 70-75. Helps precision. After student is good at normal speeds.

3. One way, is On Com 2 call (US airport) ground far out and ask them to update customs desk at that airport. They have for me and its appreciated. Can do this for fuel too at small ontario airports. Saves time. Call with ETA.

3B. Teach pilots to cancel IFR and do a VFR approach at MF airports when VMC. Its courteous and allows other IFR traffic to take off. I wasn’t taught this and only learned when someone got annoyed. Then I did it every time once broke through cloud layer and VFR landing was assured.

4. this isn’t about regulation. This is about being a professional level private pilot. Or should be.

[khedrei]

You could use a similar argument for the lack of requirement of ATC communication. I dont think we have data on how many pilots lack radio communication skills.

I dont quite understand why one would do an approach at cruise speeds...?

I also don't even know how to update US customs on the arrival time other than on the phone. Only crossed a couple times and we were on time. Will ATC do it?

1. Thats brutal. Everyone here says Ottawa Terminal is busy airspace, but flying into NY center or approach without radio skills is a good way to get yelled at. (I’ve heard this happen to others on the air) They are EXTREMELY fast, extremely busy and expect everyone to know what they are saying, airspace rules and where they are going. Uhhhh, ahhhh, pauses aren’t tolerated.

2. Cause its much harder. Do an ILS at 100- 110 right to 200, no flaps, and its a snap at 70-75. Helps precision. After student is good at normal speeds.

3. One way, is On Com 2 call (US airport) ground far out and ask them to update customs desk at that airport. They have for me and its appreciated. Can do this for fuel too at small ontario airports. Saves time. Call with ETA.

3B. Teach pilots to cancel IFR and do a VFR approach at MF airports when VMC. Its courteous and allows other IFR traffic to take off. I wasn’t taught this and only learned when someone got annoyed. Then I did it every time once broke through cloud layer and VFR landing was assured.

4. this isn’t about regulation. This is about being a professional level private pilot. Or should be.

3B. We do that one on the regular mostly for the controllers. Our overshoot protection blocks off the arrival path for a major airport. They are always itching to get us to cancel without actually saying it. I teach everyone to do it if landing is assured. That has the benefit of freeing up the departure for others at any airport if they get into that habit of doing it like you said.

Thanks for the other info!

[khedrei]

Aside from hurt feelz, is there evidence that accidents are occurring because of this perceived lack? If you want the government to add extra restrictions to flying, that would help.

I dont know if data for that is available anywhere. It would be tough to trace back loss of control IMC accidents to the amount of IFR in cloud training or how much time these flights actually spent in the clouds.

I was mainly pointing out the lack of requirements being surprising. You could use a similar argument for the lack of requirement of ATC communication. I dont think we have data on how many pilots lack radio communication skills.

I think toughening up rules “just because”, isn’t a great idea. Let’s have solid data and a good basis for believing that there’s an actual safety of flight problem to solve, before we pile on on regulation. In this area, and in others. Saying the data is “tough to get” doesn’t let you off the need to get that data.

I’m not sure I see the parallel with communications skills.

I think having experience and being comfortable in IMC is an important part of building skill and confidence which are both needed. Thats my opinion.

The point I was trying to make in the comms comment is simply that there is no requirement for a pilot to have ever talked to ATC EVER and can still obtain a CPL IFR an instructor rating and even an ATPL. Im not saying that happens but it does happen that pilots are terrible at communication. Would you support putting that in the regs? It seems like an important experience to have yet isn't required. I think being in IMC is as important yet isn't required either. I think they both should be regardless of data. Just my opinion based on my experience and I was just pointing out the similarity of these two arguably important things not being required.

[khedrei]

Photofly,

I should also add, ability to use a GPS is not tested. In fact it is actually not allowed on the PPL and CPL tests officially.

Do we have safety data on accidents related to pilots inability to use GPS. I believe that would also be hard to come by. But I can still say it would be beneficial to add that requirement to the regs. Dont need the data...

Again, my opinion.

[Conflicting Traffic]

I should also add, ability to use a GPS is not tested. In fact it is actually not allowed on the PPL and CPL tests officially.

This is not correct. GPS is not allowed to be used during the visual nav portions of the tests. Nor should it. However, during the remainder of the tests, it is absolutely allowed. In the case of the CPL flight test, GPS is explicitly tested during the radio nav portion of the instrument flying in any aircraft that has a GPS installed.

You might argue that the radio nav testing should be done differently, or more comprehensively, and I think a lot of people might even agree with you. But that discussion has to start from an accurate statement of the status quo.

[digits_]

For 3B, if the weather is that great, why can't the departing traffic take off VFR then?

[rookiepilot]

For 3B, if the weather is that great, why can't the departing traffic take off VFR then?

Its commercial traffic. Probably their SOP’s.

[photofly]

The point I was trying to make in the comms comment is simply that there is no requirement for a pilot to have ever talked to ATC EVER and can still obtain a CPL IFR an instructor rating and even an ATPL. Im not saying that happens but it does happen that pilots are terrible at communication. Would you support putting that in the regs? It seems like an important experience to have yet isn't required. I think being in IMC is as important yet isn't required either. I think they both should be regardless of data. Just my opinion based on my experience and I was just pointing out the similarity of these two arguably important things not being required.

Exercise 30 exists and is assessed on both the PPL and CPL flight tests. If ATC is not available the examiner is expected to simulate.

The instrument rating flight test guide says:

Whenever practicable, instrument rating flight-test flights should be filed on an IFR flight plan. In this way, the candidate can effectively demonstrate that he or she can interact realistically with the ATC system. If circumstances do not permit a filed IFR flight, the examiner will role-play as ATC, act as a safety pilot, coordinate with the ATC system and issue simulated clearances to the candidate. In either case, the candidate is expected to comply with the clearances whether issued by ATC or the examiner.

It’s not like you’ve discovered a huge gaping hole in the training system that nobody previously recognized. If you require a real ATCO to be on the other end of a radio channel for a flight test you restrict training and examining to a geographically very small subset of Canada.

Training is about bringing student pilots up to a level where they are able safely to continue to learn and build experience on their own. It’s not expected that anyone who has completed any training course in any subject and passed the relevant test has mastered their subject and can immediately perform to the highest levels in the most sophisticated environments.

I don’t support making any new restrictive regulations unless there’s a demonstrable safety case for why the present regulations are inadequate. “I think it’s important” doesn’t meet that standard. If passengers or innocents on the ground are dying because a pilot is hesitant at talking to ATC then we should look into it. Is that happening?

[khedrei]

I should also add, ability to use a GPS is not tested. In fact it is actually not allowed on the PPL and CPL tests officially.

This is not correct. GPS is not allowed to be used during the visual nav portions of the tests. Nor should it. However, during the remainder of the tests, it is absolutely allowed. In the case of the CPL flight test, GPS is explicitly tested during the radio nav portion of the instrument flying in any aircraft that has a GPS installed.

You might argue that the radio nav testing should be done differently, or more comprehensively, and I think a lot of people might even agree with you. But that discussion has to start from an accurate statement of the status quo.

You are correct. I misspoke on this.

Although I will disagree with the fact that it shouldn't be allowed during ex 23. I also know of a couple TC employees and PE's that are trying to change this.

To correct myself, the accurate statement would be that you could get all of your licenses and ratings without knowing how to use one.

PhotoFly, I respect your opinion but disagree with some of this.

First I agree that there is not a huge gaping hole with communication. I just found it funny that there is no REQUIREMENT to have ever talked to an ATC, thats it. Also, ATS is available in almost every part of the country and certainly the most populated areas so I dont agree that would limit training to a small geographic area of the country.

There are lots of things in the test and training that are obsolete or arbitrary. Does teaching spins prevent accidents? Why don't we teach it like the US where they teach stalls and if you don't stall you can't spin. My point here is simply that not everything in the guide or regs has safety data to support it nor do some of the ones already in it. Why 300NM for the XC? Why 12 solo hours and not 15. Why 17 dual and not 22? A lot of these things are arbitrary. I think it would only be a good thing to require say, 2, 3 or 5?? of the 40 instrument hours be in IMC. Or require a student to solo to a place with ATS services. Again, my opinion, and I dont think these things require safety data to prove it makes pilots safer.

[photofly]

There are lots of things in the test and training that are obsolete or arbitrary. Does teaching spins prevent accidents? Why don't we teach it like the US where they teach stalls and if you don't stall you can't spin. My point here is simply that not everything in the guide or regs has safety data to support it nor do some of the ones already in it. Why 300NM for the XC? Why 12 solo hours and not 15. Why 17 dual and not 22? A lot of these things are arbitrary. I think it would only be a good thing to require say, 2, 3 or 5?? of the 40 instrument hours be in IMC. Or require a student to solo to a place with ATS services. Again, my opinion, and I dont think these things require safety data to prove it makes pilots safer.

We’re not talking about justifying the existing requirements. You want to add new ones, which should have a much higher bar to meet.

I think we need protection from pilots who want to add regulations much more than we need protection from pilots who can’t get a clearance to enter a control zone!

[khedrei]

There are lots of things in the test and training that are obsolete or arbitrary. Does teaching spins prevent accidents? Why don't we teach it like the US where they teach stalls and if you don't stall you can't spin. My point here is simply that not everything in the guide or regs has safety data to support it nor do some of the ones already in it. Why 300NM for the XC? Why 12 solo hours and not 15. Why 17 dual and not 22? A lot of these things are arbitrary. I think it would only be a good thing to require say, 2, 3 or 5?? of the 40 instrument hours be in IMC. Or require a student to solo to a place with ATS services. Again, my opinion, and I dont think these things require safety data to prove it makes pilots safer.

We’re not talking about justifying the existing requirements. You want to add new ones, which should have a much higher bar to meet.

I think we need protection from pilots who want to add regulations much more than we need protection from pilots who can’t get a clearance to enter a control zone!

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[digits_]

For 3B, if the weather is that great, why can't the departing traffic take off VFR then?

Its commercial traffic. Probably their SOP’s.

Likely. Then it's their own choice though to wait for IFR traffic to land.

I've seen way too many pilots cancel IFR in crappy conditions just 'to be nice'. If the departing traffic is not comfortable to depart VFR, then it can't reasonably expect landing traffic to land VFR. If it's an SOP thing, then their company should fix their own issue and change their SOPs.