I was wondering if anyone could answer a few questions for me. A few days ago i received a letter from our FTU's TC Inspector in the Pacific Region. I guess when i first began instructing just over a year ago, i was misinformed about what a "failed" flight test meant. So this letter says 3 of my last 10 candidates failed their flight test, yet all of them were eligible for a partial test. I've evaluated my training technique time and time again, but i guess all 3 of them partialed their tests on the 180degree approach or the forced landing. Ive had my CFI assess my ability to teach this exercise, and he said there were no problems with my method of teaching. It's unfortunate that my ability to teach is assessed on these 2 exercises in tc's eyes, even though my record states they receive 3s and 4s 85% of the time. These exercises rely so heavily on a student to have good situational awareness and common sense. While as instructors we can help build students up in these areas, its also next to impossible to teach it in the little amount of time alloted to get a student to flight test.

Here's the question. Are these letters a big deal, how many other people have received a letter like this, and how is this going to affect my class 2 upgrade?

It does sound like you were a little bit misinformed during your initial training about what constitutes a "failed flight test". I have found that many folks have been mis-informed in the same way. When someone attempts a flight test, there are only two possible, overall, outcomes: pass or fail. In the case that the candidate's performance was assessed as a fail, there are cases where they only "kinda" failed and are eligible for a partial re-test. That being said, the assessment is technically, "fail - eligible for a partial re-test" and is not a "partial pass". Your record will reflect a failed flight test. That being said, when they complete the partial re-test and pass you will then receive credit for them passing that flight test. In that case, your record would now show one more failure (the original flight test) and a pass (for the partial re-test).

As for the letter -- I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. As things stand now, your record is still satisfactory so TC won't be coming after you. It won't have any real effect on your Class II upgrade. Mind you, you can pretty much guarantee that the upgrade flight test will at least touch on the 180 power-off approach and the forced landing.

TC uses the performance of your candidates as a guide to your skill as an instructor. If your students consistently perform poorly on a given exercise, TC begins to question if the reason for their poor performance is due to your instructional skill. If your record should fall into the realm of "unsatisfactory" (more than three failures in the past ten flight tests) they conduct a review of your skills. This review can cover all kinds of things like talking to the CFI about your performance or assessing you on teaching those exercises. If they determine from the assessment that your instructional skills are adequate for those exercises then there is no issue and nothing happens.

In your case, your record is still satisfactory. My guess though, is that the items will still be covered on your upgrade ride though. That being said, from what you have described, the "problems" that some of your students have been having are not related to your skills as an instructor and are more related to the "heat of the moment" in the flight test. It sounds like you have already completed a review of your performance, similar to the one that TC would carry out if your record were to deteriorate. Bottom line -- It sounds like you have nothing to worry about.

... and people wonder why they take 50 hours to
solo, and 100 hours to their private pilot licence

There is absolutely no motivation for an instructor
to do otherwise.

If an instructor spends an excessive amount of
time with a student, they earn more money, and
are less likely to have Transport come after them.

How can an instructor lose, when his students
all take 50 hours to solo, and 100 hours to licence?

As usual, the taxpaying citizen gets it in the ear. It's
the Canadian Way

I received this letter once... and recently one of the best recognised instructors on this field received one as well.
The trouble is that often the most experienced instructors get the poorest quality, high workload students.
The student only has to make a mistake on one exercise and he/she fails.
My friend here had a student with mostly 4's a few 3's, and one failed item. The overall score was higher than is required for a CPL let alone a PPL! But one item failed and so this the third within the last 10, constituted a very bad record.

IMHO the Transport Canada letter in this regard is HIGHLY HIGHLY OFFENSIVE and seriously counter productive.

At best it leaves a bad taste in the recipients mouth, at worst it means good instructors who, through their own ability get the weaker students, leave the profession.

Transport Canada would do well to do away with this offensively written letter and leave it to the inspectors to deal directly with the instructors to determine whether there really is a problem.

Hi Michael, I'd have to disagree about the letter being offensive and counter productive (mind you I've not recieved one myself). I can see how you'd feel that way because from the sounds of it you keep your FTU and instructors in good order, and as such I suspect that you would catch and rectify any problems quickly. Sadly, not all FTUs are run this way. TC's system of monitoring flight test results is designed to catch and fix problems that slip by CFIs. I realize that getting a letter from them saying "We've got our eye on you" could raise some hackles, but they have to give you some warning before they take action. Even if you do get hauled in for a chat after the 4th fail the objective isn't to punish you. Sometimes there was a systemic problem, other times it was just like you said; good instructor gets stuck with some of the worst students. All the guys that I've seen this happen to have had a little one on one coaching and then been placed under some form of supervision for a few flight tests. For what its worth most of these guys were at FTUs where the CFI was not on the ball, so TC had to fix the problem.

what the hell is a 180 degree approach? I didn't do one on my flight test unless your talking about entering the circuit from the downwind.

It was added to the CPL flight test a couple years ago, most failed item on that test is it not?

How on earth would you fail it?!

Turn immediately. Stay high, esp with strong
headwind on final. Sideslip as required to get
rid of excess energy on final.

I have done literally thousands of power-off
landings in the Pitts, exactly as described in
the CPL flight test guide. It does not pose
an intellectual challenge.

God, I hope Gerry Younger doesn't hear
about this.

That looks like a good addition to the flight test, not that engine failures in the circuit are common. At least you have some idea of how much alt is required for a power off circuit.

i think its mostly students misjudging because transport pulls your engine and then says "ok put it on that spot there within +- 150 feet" they don't just let you land on the runway in question it has to be a spot landing on a pre determined spot.

Well now that we're off topic...

You pull the power, not the examiner.
And as to why so many people fail, my theories-
I trained at a control zone and we were suppose to request from tower to practice these. Not very much practice was achieved as it was usually too busy to get some in. Same could be said at a busy atf. Also, even small variations in wind speed and direction would greatly affect the approach, might be hard for a lot of students to think about this when they're planning.

Not everyone is as good as you Hedley.
But for anyone currently training, Hedley described perfectly how you should perform it (if you get to start it in the dw).

my examiner pulled the power.

(as a side note, this is not an excuse I passed mine)

The letter is offensive in the way it is written.
The interview with a TC inspector is the better idea rather than getting a nasty written letter in the mail.

Instructors have a difficult job these days, often the material we have to teach is of a lower quality, poorer motivation, and then the flight test is often long, a whole day with some examiners, and with a higher degree of difficulty than when I and perhaps Hedley did our PPL flight tests.
It is nothing like as easy to do the PPL now as it was in 1974 when I did my PPL test, nor 1960 when a friend of mine did his.
There's been a quantum leap in requirement since 1960!

And yet, in spite of the onerous testing; aviator skills are lacking... They weren't lacking so much in 1960 when the wheel was usually at the back, or in 1974 when the instructors had often learned in real aeroplanes but now we see runups in Cessna 172 with the elevator down or wafting in the breeze when up elevator would give another two inches of prop clearance...
In 1974 the flight test was a lot simpler, but I suppose the training level was expected to be higher.
Like laws, rules, and regulations the flight test is covering every exercise because of inadequacies demonstrated in recent times.

The 180 degree glide to a point on the runway is the same as a properly conducted forced landing.
It is a requirement in the Pitts because you can't see anything otherwise!

Hi Michael, I did not realize that the letter itself was written in a nasty way, and I can see how you would object to that. I misunderstood your original comments, I thought you were objecting to TC taking action with regards to a questionable flight test record. My bad.

.... at a control zone ... not very much practice ... usually too busy to get some in. Same ... at a busy atf

Now we're getting somewhere. Are you saying that people are
having difficulty with this item (180 dw pfl) on the cpl flight test
because they simply haven't practiced it enough?

Ok, I buy that, but candidates for a frikken CPL should have a
PPL and should be able to fly, by themselves, to a quiet airport
and practice the 180 dw pfl a few times, before they go for
the CPL flight test.

Am I missing something?

Years ago, before this was added to the CPL flight test,
when I was working as a full-time instructor, I would do
pre-flight tests with people, and at least for the PPL, I
would hardly need to look at the PTR, because what
everybody had problems with was:

1) steep turns
2) forced approaches (from 3000 feet)
3) diversions

These were typically what people scored poorly on
flight tests, and it didn't really take very long to
get most people performing MUCH better on these
items, with just a little ground instruction, and
flight practice.

Similarly, you let me give me one frikken lesson
to a CPL candidate, and I guarantee you he will
pass the 180 dw pfl. It just isn't that hard a task
to perform. Really.

Seeing as how it's only been in place for the last couple years, most instructors have never learned this exercise themselves. I agree, it is a fairly easy exercise, if taught how to do it. Otherwise you're just out there to figure it out for yourself.

As for practicing at another aerodrome, sure, that works in some parts. Where I learned to fly the next closest airport was an hour flight away and not an option.

I never understood why the 180 degree power off approach was such a hard exercise. What Hedley said earlier is pretty much all there is to it, but the student needs to have the fundamentals down to pull it off successfully. I found that the biggest hurdle for many students was a reluctance to slip to lose altitude. I remember back when I did my instructor rating, my instructor (a retired Air Force fighter pilot/instructor with 50 years of flying) made me do a power-off 180 pretty much every time we went flying just so he'd be damn sure I knew what I was doing and could teach it to others. He obviously knew that students would have trouble with it too. He must have got his point across, because my students performed them fairly consistently and out of 10 recommends I never had a student fail that particular exercise.

Constructive comments on the 180 dw pfl:

1) learn to do them first in calm wind, or at least
without a gale force wind Just fly a
continuous descending U for the base-to-final,
slightly closer than your normally would. But
don't crowd the threshold ridiculously (common
initial error) because it DOES have a glide ratio,
after all!

2) once you get the hang of the 180 dw pfl in
calm winds, time to take on some stronger
winds. We don't do much ground reference
stuff here in Canada - just one weird lesson
called "Illusions Created By Drift" which since
it isn't a flight test item, is often glossed over.

Divide the wind up into components. X-axis
is the component of the wind down the runway,
Y-axis is the component of the wind on base.

(Draw a picture for the student right now. I
love pictures).

The stronger the X-axis wind down the runway
is, the closer you want to stay to the threshold
(ie decrease the radius of the turn to base).

Now for the Y-axis wind. Strong headwind
on base, again stay closer to the threshold.
But a strong tailwind on base (ie strong
crosswind from left on final with left traffic),
you want to OPEN up the radius, otherwise
you're going to be too high on final. Also,
with a tailwind on base, start the turn to
final earlier than you normally would,
because the increased groundspeed
increases the radius of your turn to final.

You will notice that many of the above
considerations are nothing new - you've
already been around the circuit a LOT of
times, and the 180 dw pfl is just a minor
variation on the theme.

Review radius considerations above, with
X-axis and Y-axis wind. Take this opportunity
to ask the students questions, like "Why?"
and get them to explain why the wind
components increase and decrease the
radiuses of the turns.

180 dw pfl's really aren't that hard. Honest!

You want to have some fun in the circuit?

After takeoff, roll to the left to turn to
crosswind, but continue the roll so that
you exit the 90 degree turn inverted
on crosswind. Fly the crosswind inverted,
then start the roll to turn downwind, and
push to exit the 90 degree turn to the
downwind upright. Take a look around,
and do at least 10 continuous rolls on
downwind, looking at the runway
threshold each time you go around.

Abeam the numbers, the power goes
off, continue your rolling to turn to
base, and fly the 180 dw pfl

Generally, you're on the ground 20
seconds after power reduction on
downwind, which with a 1000 feet
circuit is around 3000 fpm descent
rate. You can increase that with a
90 degree sideslip.

I remember watching Gene Soucy doing
snap rolls on final to lose airspeed

On the note of PFLs, when you do your radio call and say "Bonny Bay Traffic GABC is on a PFL for rwy 34" all the local private pilots and many commercial (not previously flight instructors) have no clue what you are about to do. Take the time and call it a practice forced landing or simulated engine failure or what ever will clarify it to others in the area.

I don't think the 180 PFL is a hard exercise since it's basically the last 1000' of a forced approach and you've been practicing those since your PPL. You pull the power off yourself and choose your landing zone. If you are confident you can make all of your forced approaches in the training area you now get to see the end result of all that training.

There are two BS items in the flight training books on the circuit.
1. turning crosswind at half the circuit height
2. turning base at forty five degrees to the runway

These things do not take the wind into account and students taught this way turn halfway along the runway on a windy day and do not have much of a downwind. Then they end up too low, bucking the turbulence and clawing into the same wind on final.

On a windy day I move the whole circuit into the wind, even climbing to circuit height on the initial climbout if the wind is 30 knots or more.
You will be turning crosswind at about the same position as you would on a calm day.

Easier than the forty five degree idea is to start reducing the speed to the approach speed when the wing is in line with the touch down point, or the end of the runway, it's not so critical, the aeroplane is then trimmed and stable at the initial approach speed as it turns base. On a calm day this is at about the forty five degree angle...
On a windy day we would slow down earlier and turn earlier and this is not at forty five degrees.

My test for the correct position to turn is by giving an engine failure to the student/pilot at the base turn point. If you can't make it, your circuit is too big.

Many times we get dragged on cross country circuits... The answer to this is the stay at circuit height until you know you can get in.
If we haven't got anyone behind we slow down, even apply a little flap for visibility, and wait for the Cessna ahead to go to the tunnel and back or whatever...

For students taught this way the 180 degree approach is a piece of cake!

Sorry, that was "words twice"....

cross country circuits

It's probably not kosher, but I teach that huge circuits
are objectively less safe than smaller circuits.

It's easy to prove: pull the throttle on someone flying
a huge circuit. They aren't landing on the runway,
they're in the trees or houses surrounding the airport.

Pull the throttle on a smaller circuit, and you land
on the runway. That's safer.

But still, people continue to fly HUGE circuits. Not
sure why.

But still, people continue to fly HUGE circuits. Not
sure why.

Practicing for the vectored ILS on the 777.