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

Squaretail
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm

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

Post by Squaretail »

digits_ wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 2:10 pm
photofly wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 2:00 pm
Squaretail wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:29 pm
I'm sure that the fact that many schools use an in house PE has nothing to do with this.
One cannot simultaneously believe that in-house examiners are giving students an easy pass, and at the same time...
Squaretail wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:24 am Playing the devil's advocate, this sort of stinks of perhaps some schools looking to soak students for a bit more training.
... be looking for excuses to extend training duration artificially.

It really has to be one sort of malfeasance or the other. You pick!
Oh it can be both. You just need a bit of creativity. 'We'll milk them for whatever we can with inferior instruction, but in the end they NEED to pass!'
Indeed. Now a) you can look like all your students pass on the first try and b) Now still make money with the remedial training. Imagine you're the owner, and PE. You have an incentive to make students pass, but perhaps you still want to bilk them for more training. Now you don't have to put messy fails on the record and do retests yourself, now you can put all them instructors to work fixing the mistake. I would be willing to bet that a lot of the remedial training would also sneak into the initial hours towards getting those instructors started on their instructors....

Personally I can see how this could be abused. In a lot of ways. Maybe this is a ticket out for a lot of examiners who don't like failing students, now its not on their heads, it will get fixed right? Its not a constructive fix, but there's a lot of ways for it to turn bad.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
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 think, if you want to make an argument to convince whoever is pushing this at TC that it's a bad idea, you can't build that argument on the foundation that pilot examiners are all corrupt and venal. I understand that's how you feel, but the flight testing system is based on the idea (perhaps you think it's a fantasy) that PEs are honest and endeavour to fulfil their duties in a responsible and honourable way. And in that world at least, I don't think your objections make a lot of sense.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Squaretail
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm

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

Post by Squaretail »

Probably not. I'm just unhappy with the product that's coming out of schools. That I find fresh CPL holders can't meet flight test standards all too often makes me wonder how the tests are being conducted. I haven't gone so far to say that they're ALL corrupt, but rather that such an idea might be pushed by SOME corrupt ones, which I know are out there.

It may just be my dark view of the world. I got out of the flight training world a lot because I had a lot of bad experience with such things.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
User avatar
Conflicting Traffic
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:58 pm

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

Post by Conflicting Traffic »

Squaretail wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:48 pm Probably not. I'm just unhappy with the product that's coming out of schools. That I find fresh CPL holders can't meet flight test standards all too often makes me wonder how the tests are being conducted. I haven't gone so far to say that they're ALL corrupt, but rather that such an idea might be pushed by SOME corrupt ones, which I know are out there.

It may just be my dark view of the world. I got out of the flight training world a lot because I had a lot of bad experience with such things.
I think maybe you're over-estimating what the flight test standard actually is. I frequently pass candidates on flight tests knowing that I would never recommend them in the first place if they were my own student (or hire them if the ride was a job interview). The standard is low. Very low. Especially at the CPL level, which calls for almost the exact same exercises completed to almost the exact same standard as the PPL. So not only is the standard low to begin with, it doesn't call for any kind of growth with experience and training.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), PEs don't have the authority to apply their own standard. We are delegates of the minister, and our role is to measure the performance of candidates against the minister's standard.

To be clear, I wholeheartedly agree with you here:
Squaretail wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:48 pm I'm just unhappy with the product that's coming out of schools.
But I don't think that, in general, the PEs are the problem. What we need is an elevated standard. Although I'm inclined to agree with you and photofly that this is probably not the best way (or perhaps even a good way) to do it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
----------------------------------------
Conflicting Traffic please advise.
Squaretail
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm

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

Post by Squaretail »

I think maybe you're over-estimating what the flight test standard actually is.
I don't think so. And I'm probably way more lenient in person than I may present. I mean some of these guys aren't even PPL standard. If you can't do a steep turn without it turning into a spiral dive and I have to take control, twice you shouldn't have a license. How does someone forget how a stall recovery works less than a month after their flight test? My personal favorite was the guy who when I asked what he would do if the engine failed, assumed the crash position. Who's flying?! Just no words.

As far as I remember, all of those would have been graded 1, or has that changed? Maybe I'm not being clear enough how bad some of them have been.
But I don't think that, in general, the PEs are the problem.
I think they're part of it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
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’d propose a two part test. An initial test pass qualifies you for privileges for six months. You have to repeat the test six months later to make the privileges permanent. Then there’s an element of retained skill being tested.

Alternatively, the requirement for a PPL could be simply amended to include having held a PP-R for at least six months. That would achieve more or less the same goal.

More work for PE’s too, so even the corrupt win.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

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

Post by rookiepilot »

Conflicting Traffic wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:41 pm
Squaretail wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:48 pm Probably not. I'm just unhappy with the product that's coming out of schools. That I find fresh CPL holders can't meet flight test standards all too often makes me wonder how the tests are being conducted. I haven't gone so far to say that they're ALL corrupt, but rather that such an idea might be pushed by SOME corrupt ones, which I know are out there.

It may just be my dark view of the world. I got out of the flight training world a lot because I had a lot of bad experience with such things.
I think maybe you're over-estimating what the flight test standard actually is. I frequently pass candidates on flight tests knowing that I would never recommend them in the first place if they were my own student (or hire them if the ride was a job interview). The standard is low. Very low. Especially at the CPL level, which calls for almost the exact same exercises completed to almost the exact same standard as the PPL. So not only is the standard low to begin with, it doesn't call for any kind of growth with experience and training.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), PEs don't have the authority to apply their own standard. We are delegates of the minister, and our role is to measure the performance of candidates against the minister's standard.

To be clear, I wholeheartedly agree with you here:
Squaretail wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:48 pm I'm just unhappy with the product that's coming out of schools.
But I don't think that, in general, the PEs are the problem. What we need is an elevated standard. Although I'm inclined to agree with you and photofly that this is probably not the best way (or perhaps even a good way) to do it.
The CPL standard is a joke. I have one. What a waste of time for a piece of paper.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Squaretail
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm

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

Post by Squaretail »

rookiepilot wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:55 am
The CPL standard is a joke. I have one. What a waste of time for a piece of paper.
I think the standard is adequate. The problem I feel is that a lot of people with a CPL can't meet the standard. I've run into this with other tested items too. After all how does a guy with a fresh ME rating or MIFR not know what a cross feed is, not know that retractable airplanes have an emergency extension, or worse, not know what the blue lever does? When I was doing more class 1 work, I'd have people I would have to turn away because they, in spite of having the ink still wet on their CPL, just couldn't do any of the exercises to even PPL standards. Then I would see them later them having somehow got an class 4, and they still couldn't do any of the exercises, nevermind actually demonstrate them.

But I've also found that while two pilots may be the same on paper, there's just no telling how they will perform. Some will be rockstars, some of them probably can't put on a pair of matching socks in the morning. To me, this says the standard isn't being universally applied. Or maybe there's a lot of brute forcing flight tests.

The latter category it should be said isn't the majority, thank the Gods, but its a large enough number that Canadian quality of training as a whole can be questioned as BPF suggests.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

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

Post by rookiepilot »

Squaretail wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:48 am
rookiepilot wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:55 am
The CPL standard is a joke. I have one. What a waste of time for a piece of paper.
I think the standard is adequate. The problem I feel is that a lot of people with a CPL can't meet the standard. I've run into this with other tested items too. After all how does a guy with a fresh ME rating or MIFR not know what a cross feed is, not know that retractable airplanes have an emergency extension, or worse, not know what the blue lever does? When I was doing more class 1 work, I'd have people I would have to turn away because they, in spite of having the ink still wet on their CPL, just couldn't do any of the exercises to even PPL standards. Then I would see them later them having somehow got an class 4, and they still couldn't do any of the exercises, nevermind actually demonstrate them.

But I've also found that while two pilots may be the same on paper, there's just no telling how they will perform. Some will be rockstars, some of them probably can't put on a pair of matching socks in the morning. To me, this says the standard isn't being universally applied. Or maybe there's a lot of brute forcing flight tests.

The latter category it should be said isn't the majority, thank the Gods, but its a large enough number that Canadian quality of training as a whole can be questioned as BPF suggests.
This is sad to hear.

A CPL should be able to hold altitude within 20 -30 feet and heading 3-5 degrees with no trouble, even in bumpy conditions. Trim is your friend….

I have flown a lot from the right seat when training with a friend. That forces attention to detail when instruments are on the left only.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Conflicting Traffic
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:58 pm

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

Post by Conflicting Traffic »

Squaretail wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:20 pm If you can't do a steep turn without it turning into a spiral dive and I have to take control, twice you shouldn't have a license. How does someone forget how a stall recovery works less than a month after their flight test? My personal favorite was the guy who when I asked what he would do if the engine failed, assumed the crash position. Who's flying?! Just no words.

As far as I remember, all of those would have been graded 1, or has that changed? Maybe I'm not being clear enough how bad some of them have been.
Yep. Definitely 1's. The problem (or at least *a* problem) is that a 2 leaves no margin for skill degradation. And lots of the skills we train for do degrade over time (although they really shouldn't degrade to the extent that you're describing!).
Squaretail wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:20 pm
But I don't think that, in general, the PEs are the problem.
I think they're part of it.
The ones that I've dealt with over the years are not. But that's a pretty small sampling in the context of all of flight training. So I'm willing to concede the point. If it's the problem you think it is, what do you suggest as a solution?
Squaretail wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:48 am I think the standard is adequate. The problem I feel is that a lot of people with a CPL can't meet the standard.
As noted above, the standard leaves no room for skill decay. So it's not surprising that someone who scrapes by can't meet the standard a little while later. This is the fundamental problem with having such a low standard.
Squaretail wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:48 am I've run into this with other tested items too. After all how does a guy with a fresh ME rating or MIFR not know what a cross feed is, not know that retractable airplanes have an emergency extension, or worse, not know what the blue lever does?
:shock: I'm happy to report that I have not seen these. However, I have seen other ridiculous things (like CPL-holding ME students who I had to teach how to use a transponder).
Squaretail wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:48 am When I was doing more class 1 work, I'd have people I would have to turn away because they, in spite of having the ink still wet on their CPL, just couldn't do any of the exercises to even PPL standards. Then I would see them later them having somehow got an class 4, and they still couldn't do any of the exercises, nevermind actually demonstrate them.
Yes. This is the norm. It's frustrating. I've never had an instructor student that didn't require instruction on basic flight maneuvers and flight operations. When someone holds a CPL and starts an instructor rating, there should be *zero* time spent learning to fly. The entire course should be focused on learning to teach. But as much as I'd like to see that, it just isn't reality. The PPL and (especially) the CPL standards need to be raised before that can happen.
Squaretail wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:48 am But I've also found that while two pilots may be the same on paper, there's just no telling how they will perform. Some will be rockstars, some of them probably can't put on a pair of matching socks in the morning. To me, this says the standard isn't being universally applied. Or maybe there's a lot of brute forcing flight tests.
The rock stars are the ones who exceeded the standard on ride day. The poor performers are the ones who just scraped by. The fact is that they shouldn't have scraped by, but the standard allows for that. Basically, your position can be interpreted to support the need for remedial training on weak exercises. But I choose to interpret it to mean that the standard needs to be raised.
Squaretail wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:48 am The latter category it should be said isn't the majority, thank the Gods, but its a large enough number that Canadian quality of training as a whole can be questioned as BPF suggests.
The extreme cases might not be the norm, but mediocrity is. And Mediocre flying skills translate to terrible instruction. It's not just about poor demonstration or setting an inadequate example -- mediocre skills are usually based on poor-to-mediocre knowledge.
---------- ADS -----------
 
----------------------------------------
Conflicting Traffic please advise.
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_ »

Conflicting Traffic wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:34 pm When someone holds a CPL and starts an instructor rating, there should be *zero* time spent learning to fly. The entire course should be focused on learning to teach. But as much as I'd like to see that, it just isn't reality. The PPL and (especially) the CPL standards need to be raised before that can happen.
Hmm.. I understand your reasoning but it's a bit unrealistic. Quite a few of the flight test exercises are rarely encountered during daily flights. You can't realistically expect new fi students to ace all flight test exercises in a possibly new airplane type.
Most fi students will be flying the plane from the right side for the first time, that takes some time getting used to as well.

When learning to teach flying, your flying skills themselves will also improve (hopefully). You need a thorough understanding of the subject to properly teach. Often the mere act of explaining something to someone else will improve your understanding of the subject as well.
---------- 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 »

Conflicting Traffic wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:34 pm The extreme cases might not be the norm, but mediocrity is.
Mediocrity is the norm. Most university graduates are mediocre at their subject, most financial experts are mediocre, most real estate agents are mediocre, most lawyers are mediocre. Most newly qualified doctors don’t even reach mediocre, frankly. Most school teachers are mediocre too. Policemen? Yep, them also. This is especially obvious when viewed from within the ranks of those fields of work.

Does an outsider see a newly-qualified CPL as mediocre? Do they care about the finer details of cross feeds and blue knobs? Not one bit. You can take off? And land? And takeoff in the same airplane again? You’re a superstar!

You’re especially skilled at recognizing mediocrity in your area of expertise, but it’s everywhere, I promise you.

One role where mediocrity isn’t the norm: most air traffic controllers are not mediocre, but they have a training washout rate in the high 90% region. But then again I’m not an ATCO so perhaps I’m faced with ATC mediocrity every day and just don’t recognize it.

If you want the average newly qualified CPL to be much better than mediocre then it would be not hard to raise the training standards so that only 1 in 20 entrants had the aptitude to qualify. Presto-hey: no more mediocre CPLs. But, also, to a first approximation, no more CPLs at all.

Does this really matter? We’ve structured things to work around mediocrity. Airlines have procedures and airplanes that allow mediocre pilots to be safe pilots. Doctors get a lot of supervision (and a lot of coverups.) Mediocre lawyers are likely on both sides of a case so it kind of balances out. If one side can afford a good lawyer then of course they have an advantage, which is why any legal dispute is stacked towards the wealthier party.

Mediocrity is everywhere you look, even if you don’t see it. So when you get a good pilot, who isn’t mediocre, they’re worth celebrating.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
Bede
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4425
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:52 am

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

Post by Bede »

^ bang on.
---------- ADS -----------
 
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 »

How students approach flight training is a choice. They can decide to only put the enough effort in to just scrape through the test or they can decide they want to be the best they can be.

I think the PPL standard is actually OK, although the navigation exercises need to be updated. It truly is a license to learn and they should improve with practice. The CPL however is a different story. The standard doesn't just allow mediocrity it allows incompetence.
---------- 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 »

How would you update the navigation exercises?
---------- 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 9:27 am How would you update the navigation exercises?
The traditional map and pencil navigation techniques are predicated on the fact that you don't have real time positioning information. Since you could only fix the aircrafts position episodically traditional navigation techniques are a means to overcome this constraint.

However that constraint no longer exists. GPS provide instantaneous, real time, extremely accurate aircraft position, speed and track. Almost nobody draws lines on maps anymore, everybody uses GPS positioning information usually with a navigation chart overlay like foreflight. This reality is totally ignored in flight training which is a disservice to students.

I have heard many people say that GPS dumbs down pilots. I think used correctly GPS navigation is just as hard as traditional methods it just forces a different approach to navigation. GPS requires a big picture look at the world and an organized way of using all the data that was not available before. It also requires a well developed TLAR (That Looks About Right) sense.

A great example was a flight I did awhile ago with a relatively new PPL who had just bought a nice C 172 with a Garmin 430. He wanted some mentoring and so offered to buy me lunch at an airport known for its excellent restaurant. The flight out went well but on the way back we are taxing out while there is a lot of fast button pushing on the GPS. I ask what the heading back is how far is our home base and he says 039 deg and 126 miles. I said what was the track and distance to get here ? He though about it and said 330 and 72 miles and the penny dropped.....

Teaching new pilots to use GPS navigators and electronic flight planning tools need an organized and methodical approach with a both ends to the middle organizing plan and big picture to detail map sequence. If it is taught at all it is usually the worst PGI at every school
---------- 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 »

How would that translate into a flight test exercise or exercises?
---------- 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 10:02 am How would that translate into a flight test exercise or exercises?
Assign a route that will require multiple legs ( min 4). Assign a re-route in flight approximately 10 nm from the start point and when established fail the primary GPS navigator to force a reversion to alternate navigator ( eg phone) or paper chart for a diversion back to home airport. When established on return track nav exercise is over.

Candidates will be assessed on how well all planning factors ( eg weather, terrain, airspace) are considered in initial plan, competency in manipulating navigator in flight and effectively using nav information ( eg GS and ETE) and avoidance of excessive head down time.
---------- 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 »

Does GPS equipment - certified or not - become a strict requirement for an airplane to undertake a PPL on, then?
---------- 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 10:51 am Does GPS equipment - certified or not - become a strict requirement for an airplane to undertake a PPL on, then?
Yes because that is how pilots navigate in the real world.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”