Following discussion about the allegedly poor standard of flight training in Canada.

I suggest that if training is poor, this situation is only permitted to continue because test standards are too low, and so badly-trained candidates are able to pass.

So here's a chance to write your own flight test standards, which, absent good training, a candidate must necessarily fail. What would you include? Be creative! if only demonstration of three consecutive night-time ILS's to 50' minimums in mountainous regions in real freezing fog with a 43 knot quartering tail wind - with two passengers both of whom are filling their third sick bag - will convince you that a candidate deserves an Instrument Rating here's your chance to design a flight test that includes that as a performance standard.

What do you need to see, to prove a pilot has "it"?

Take it away...

(And the Colonel is permitted to jump in and say that in his opinion all CPL flight tests must be conducted in a tail-wheel aircraft. That might not be a bad start.)

For the most part, I would just like to see the current standards upheld. I'm not convinced that that they are in many cases. This has been something that's become more of a problem since TC started passing off much, almost all of their duties in this regard.

For changes I wish we could go back to the old 0-5 grading system rather than the current 1-4. The total score on both the PPL and CPL need to be increased, currently if I remember rightly you can almost score a 2 on everything and pass the PPL. The bar ain't much higher for the CPL. Some of the criteria for excersises need to be redefined as to me their execution seems to be something that's unique to the flight test rather than as how one would go about them in real life. Excersise 23 being the most pertinent here.

Lastly I would like to see a change in how a "partial pass" is conducted. Personally it should be termed a "partial fail" lets not mince words in an effort not to hurt feelings. There should also be limits on how many times one can fail a test - hence the change in the language. 3 strikes should be reasonable.

Half a day with the Colonel.....No syllabus!

When I did my PPL, it felt too much like learning the lines of a play. Do it this way, you'll pass (which I did). Really, I'm not sure of the need for a Test per-se -- a trustworthy instructor who will only sign you off when you are ready (like the night rating) would do as good a job, but then we all know why that would never work.

Still remember my instructor making me memorise a whole pile of irrelevant stuff for the oral exam, when my solution was to learn where it all was in the POH in case it came up. Still had no need to remember the specific oil in the Oleo, and even if I did think I remembered I'd look it up anyway.

Quantitative tasks and skills that I would like to see:


**** Crosswind Takeoff & Landing ****
PPL 10 knot direct crosswind
CPL 15 knot direct crosswind
Instructor: 20 knots direct crosswind

Tolerance: one wingspan from runway centerline
Obviously cannot arrange the day of flight test. Needs
to be video-documented prerequisite in PTR with signatures
from CFI and AP.


**** Short Field Landing ****
PPL 1500 feet
CPL 1000 feet
Instructor 500 feet
Less than 10 knots of headwind component permitted.
Flat spot on tires disqualifying.


**** Instrument Rating Flight Test ****
With autopilot off, and one half of the cockpit lighting failed,
copy complex revised routing requiring refolding LO chart to
locate unknown obscure fix and navigate to it. Must be
performed at night in at least light turbulence.

Hand-flown ILS down to CAT II minima (100 AGL) at night
with auto-pilot off. If multi-engine, one engine must be at
zero thrust. Tolerance: 1/2 scale deflection.

Notice the emphasis on night. Far fewer visual cues to cheat
with, at night.

Training requirement: must have demonstrated takeoff and
landing under the hood. Daytime ok. Documented video
proof required.


**** Other Items ****
I would love to see the falling leaf (minimum 1000
foot duration with full aft elevator) added to the
flight tests. Deep stall.


One wheel touch and go landings for CPL and Instructor.


Back-to-back wingovers to 90 degrees of bank for CPL.
Called lazy-8. On FAA CPL flight test. Ball centered the
entire time.

Colonel Sanders wrote:Quantitative tasks and skills that I would like to see:
Hand-flown ILS down to CAT II minima (100 AGL) at night
with auto-pilot off. If multi-engine, one engine must be at
zero thrust. Tolerance: 1/2 scale deflection.

While I strongly agree with all the other requirements listed (especially cross-wind landings and lazy eights), 1/2 scale deflection is not acceptable. Tolerance should be 1/4 on a bad day.
Although if I would be judged like that on my rides, I would definitely fail my Private Checkride.

Getting soft in my old age, I guess.

These days, it's pretty easy to keep the needles in
the donuts. All I need is a GPS. Any GPS, which
displays my magnetic track.

After LOC intercept, I glance at the GPS magnetic
track and immediatly change my heading to make
the GPS magnetic track the same as the final
approach track on the plate.

If you do that, the LOC needle will remain centered
the whole way in. A lot better than how we did it
in the Bad Old Days (tm) before GPS and LORAN.

I'm always amazed when I fly with pilots that don't
do that. Really improves your NDB approaches, too!

Cheating...
I'll go along with Colonel Sanders' comments regarding night experience
with some lighting failure.
A PPL lawyer I know recently had a total electrical failure and ended up landing
on a highway "at night".

I would hate to think what would have happened if he had not had had
the training and experience that he did.

Night training is very difficult to practice in daytime.
Hood flying is one thing but to throw in at least
a partial lighting failure is sure going to help the law of effect.

In days gone by, a forced landing required that the engine be shut
down and that the landing be dam near a spot landing.
Of course such realism isn't legal today.

Quite new to the instructor side of things, but I would like to see a shift from more technical exercises (the turns etc) to more airmanship like things, especially for the ppl license.

So for a PPL I would suggest a real navigation flight over a few checkpoint into the busiest airspace you can find within a reasonable distance. This combined with a diversion on route, maybe to a busy small grass strip. Without GPS. Personally, I think being unable to do a steep turn 360 within limits is less bad than failing one of these exercises.

On the other hand, I find the Canadian grading system already quite detailed an much harder to pass than the European system. We don't have a real numeric score, but if you mess up your stall exercise while everything else is perfect, you'd probably pass on your first attempt. While in Canada, that one 1 would fail you, at least partially.

Shiny Side Up wrote:For the most part, I would just like to see the current standards upheld.

Colonel Sanders wrote:Documented video proof required.

Using video proof and flight data recording we can really change the way the flight tests are conducted.

The benefits are twofold:

1 - Integrity of standards. Rather than keeping the candidates actual test performance a secret between the examiner and the student, FDR / video evidence can make it pretty obvious to anyone whether that steep turn was a 1 or a 2. Or the student can really taxi in a straight line with wind. Or that soft landing was really soft. Standards can then be upheld.

Thinking bigger, the performance of instructors and students can be made available for all to see.

2 - Easier scheduling. The actual "flight test" doesn't have to take place in the magical confluence of airplane, student, weather, and examiner. As the Colonel mentioned many exercises can just be demonstrated during a "test week" or "test month" and the data / evidence can be reviewed at anytime and by anyone. There are quite a few test items that could be tested either using telemetry data or video evidence without having to book an examiner. The examiner will instead review the test data and video whenever. If the flight test can take 0.7 instead of 1.5 / 1.6 then that's more exams an examiner can do do a day, and less exposure to weather changes.

As the Colonel mentioned many exercises can just be demonstrated during a "test week" or "test month" and the data / evidence can be reviewed at anytime and by anyone. There are quite a few test items that could be tested either using telemetry data or video evidence without having to book an examiner

That's far too easy. Any muppet can fly a perfect steep turn or ILS once in a while; just record all of the attempts and submit only the one that worked out.

The idea here is to make the flight test harder and more rigorous, not easier. The flight test has to be done on the day, in front of the examiner - no question. If you want to video it for review, be my guest.

The idea here is to make the flight test harder and more rigorous, not easier. The flight test has to be done on the day, in front of the examiner - no question. If you want to video it for review, be my guest.

My suggestions are not aimed at making it easier, nor were they intended to recommend that students simply submit the nicest one. Perhaps they can submit the top 3 or top 5, or top 10, or whatever, or simply the past 10 hours of flight data.

The point is that if flight data is recorded and available for review, it will be easier to enforce testing standards, and it will be apparent if the student can turn in a consistent performance.

What a worthwhile challenge!

To add to a number of good points, I would include the requirement that the candidate keep the ball reasonably in the middle at all times other than when demonstrating the required sideslip, when the ball should be trying to break out of the T&B. If feet are on the floor during maneuvering, it's a fail.

A landing should be demonstrated from the downwind, with no straight path flying for a base or final, sweeping co-ordinated turn, with steady descent and deceleration the whole way around. Resulting in a presentable landing, well aligned with the runway centerline.

Forced approaches - several. To the ground, with a presentable touchdown. Demonstrate that an undershoot was a very small risk.

Near fail if the aircraft is in motion on the runway, and controls are not being held in a position appropriate to the phase of flight and prevailing wind. No letting go of everything as soon as the third wheel touches.

A landing on one wheel, where it is held that way for a bit. (I think CS mentioned this, and I really agree).

A stall to the break from a full power, full flaps climb, maintaining heading, and safe roll control.

After LOC intercept, I glance at the GPS magnetic
track and immediatly change my heading to make
the GPS magnetic track the same as the final
approach track on the plate.

I do that as well. Helps immensely! No guessing about the wind.

The flight test has to be done on the day, in front of the examiner - no question. If you want to video it for review, be my guest.

Totally agree.

Or that soft landing was really soft.

A soft landing isn't supposed to be any softer than a normal landing. That's a popular misconception, created by trying to simulate a soft landing on a 8000' x 200' piece of concrete. Try landing on a grass runway after it gets poured on by rain for 2 hours—that's a soft landing.

If feet are on the floor during maneuvering, it's a fail.

Yes!

A stall to the break from a full power, full flaps climb, maintaining heading, and safe roll control.

There should also be stalls from angles of bank of 45 or 60 degrees. And stalls with 45 or 60 degrees of bank and inside rudder. Being able to precisely fly an airplane into a stall/spin scenario and precisely fly out of that scenario requires you to be in tune with your airplane and competent in handling it.

On this point I want to discuss something. The approach to stall exercises are taught for commercial operations (so maybe this isn't too applicable here but it does involve flight training) and are required on PPC flight tests. These stall exercises only have you coming to a point just above the stall and then recovering. It is generally being taught in the industry that the recovery from a point just above the point of stall is to be done by first adding power and initially maintaining attitude. Pilots are taught to "power out" of these flight conditions and there is an emphasis on maintaining altitude. This is wrong! Recoveries from these flight conditions need to have emphasis on reducing angle of attack and not maintaining altitude.

I've heard arguments such as, 1) "you're not stalled", 2) "you might hit the ground", 3) "the airplane can easily do it safely", etc.

1) Correct. In the setup where you're at 12,000', you've briefed the exercise in detail, you're in level flight, you're slowing down at a predictable rate while monitoring airspeed, and you're mentally ready to complete all the actions to maintain the aircraft in level flight as soon as you hear the stall horn. Tell me how that compares to real life. If your airplane isn't caked in ice you'd have to have lost situational awareness about your airspeed to let it decay to the point that the stall horn goes off—this will definitely startle you; hint: you aren't mentally prepared for it. Or you do have ice and stall at a much higher speed than you expect—again, you're not prepared for it. Or you are monitoring airspeed relatively well but are task saturated and don't add enough power to level off. Your airspeed is not decreasing at 3 knots per second—by the time you realize the situation you could easily be in a fully stalled condition. Adding power is NOT the correct action!

2) If you are in a situation where you will hit the ground by reducing the angle of attack first, then you WILL hit the ground if you do stall! And much harder. The focus has to be on reducing the angle of attack. If you have the ground in sight, use all of the altitude you have to gain speed—dive towards the ground.

3) Yes, the airplane can do it safely when you know what is going to happen and are waiting to slam full power on. The airplane can't do it safely when you're slowing down faster than normal or when you're task saturated and don't have the same reaction time as you did when you were at 12,000' in VMC with no ice on your wing.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... 7-1537.htm
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... 2-2149.htm

That Advisory Circular was published in 2005... it is now 2013 and companies out there still teach emphasis on maintaining altitude and the company examiners also are under the impression that a perfect score must include zero altitude loss.

"Checking for stall training should be consistent with the preceding guidance. The primary goals of checking should be to ensure that appropriate pilot actions have been taken at the first indications of a stall. These goals should take precedence over the current emphasis placed for minimizing any altitude loss, when demonstrating approaches to a stall in level flight."

There should be no difference in technique between approach to stall recoveries and stall recoveries. The only difference will be that the airplane won't lose as much altitude during an approach to stall exercise.

Back to the original topic...

There should be a requirement that if you don't have a certain number of hours of actual IMC during training, you MUST have a certain number of hours at night under the hood. Day VMC with a hood is NOT like flying real IMC or at night with no lights.

Personally I don't think the PPL is that broken. I definitely agree with SSU that better application of the existing flight test standards would improve the average product of ab initio training.

The real issue is the unacceptably low standard at the CPL level including a flight test that is a total joke as it is just the PPL flight test repeated to slightly higher standard. The IFR flight test is also equally outdated and irrelevant.

Changing government policy requires that things have to get worse before they can get better. The recent spate of airline accidents were pilots failed to demonstrate basic aircraft handling competence, particularly in the low energy flight regime is getting regulatory attention. The newly updated FAA ATP specifically requires training in stall avoidance/recovery within the context of maneuvering high performance aircraft. EASA has also stated that they will mandate increasing training in hand flying skills and stall avoidance/recovery for all airline training programs.

Over time I think this will trickle down to more basic training as a lack of recognized training in these areas will adversely impact the job prospects of wannabes that want to fly commercially. There is a possibility that this would create a new and higher standard at all levels over time.....but I am not holding my breath.

Pilots are taught to "power out" of these flight conditions and there is an emphasis on maintaining altitude. This is wrong! Recoveries from these flight conditions need to have emphasis on reducing angle of attack and not maintaining altitude.

Agreed! Hence the reason for demonstrating stall recovery techniques at full power - adding power will not be an element of the recovery, indeed, reduction of power may be an element of the recovery a little further on. The stall entry at full power will also involve handling torque and extreme attitudes - all good for demonstrating handling skills.

Powering out is silly. Yes, it might sort of seem to work for some low power types, but for some single engined aircraft you might make things very worse with the addition of a whole bunch of torque - spin entry, if carelessly handled.

Power changes are a configuration change, and one of the more dramatic ones. Changing configuration, when the pilot's full attention should be devoted to precise control (recovery) of the aircraft, should be avoided, or done with lots of caution. Just fly the plane, change configuration when things are pointed to being better....

So, yes, during the flight test, is the candidate overloading them self with too many tasks at once, during high stress times? It's an aspect of CRM of one crew!

Powering out is silly

In a prop aircraft, it can be fatal. In a jet, not so much.

As you point out, the effects of the prop (torque, slipstream,
etc) at slow speed sometimes cannot be controlled by
the airframe flight controls - there simply isn't enough
mass of air passing over them. People often don't understand
this, because they don't spend any time at high AOA.

A good example of this is the time I was teaching myself
aerobatics in the PT-22 Ryan. I was a little soft on airspeed
on the loop entry - trying to baby the old girl (mistake) and
I ran out of airspeed inverted at the top of the loop. Full power
(and the Kinner R-56 does not exactly have an overpowering
amount of power) at slow speed caused me to enter the prettiest
inverted spin you ever did see. The contracted slipstream
yawed the airplane as well as a bootful of rudder ever could.

The egalitarians get enraged when I mention it, but I have
done hundreds of formation outside loops as wing in line
abreast. If the lead is a little soft on entry airspeed, or
doesn't use quite enough G (it's a bit tricky), while passing
through the upright 45 upline after the vertical, many many
times I have felt the aircraft quiver with a very high negative
AOA and I know it wants to stall. Worse, with that high -ve
AOA I know that there is plenty of drag lurking out there,
ready to appear and pull me back behind the lead, despite
my throttle being wide open. What you would like right then
is another thousand pounds of thrust. But believe it or not,
the best thing to do right then is to pull the throttle back. It
seems insane - you have a high -ve AOA with a guy on your
left, and you would really like some more airspeed - but the
fact of the matter is that the prop is causing you more
problems than it is solving - you have to fight the effects
of torque and slipstream. And if while doing so, you increase
the -ve AOA even by a degree or two, you are now stalled
with exponentially increasing drag. Sigh.

Of course, the hammerspin. It is well known in aerobatic
circles - esp with a metal blade prop - that many, many
people will torque off the top of a hammerhead into an
inverted spin. It happens so much, the maneuver has it's
own name: the hammerspin. Again, the prop is causing
more problems than it is solving.

This is something that many egalitarian pilots do not
understand: the prop can cause serious problems at high
AOA. Best to get the power off, go ballistic, and let the
aircraft recover. Get some airspeed and lower the AOA
and then you can hammer the throttle wide open and
pull at corner speed. The exception to this rule is the new
composite monoplanes with the truly huge tail surfaces,
which are able to magnificently harness the slipstream,
and can awesomely power out of upright flat spins at
low altitude. See Rob Holland land at the end of his solo
sequence. Most people here aren't in Rob's league, and
don't fly a custom MXS-RH, despite their posturing.

Look at these eight aileron wings that Steve Wolf sells:

http://www.wolfpitts.com/wolfprowings.html

From "The Gerbil": The roll rate is dramatically faster, especially at slower airspeeds which equates to higher over all safety

You probably don't have those, either.

In a prop aircraft, it can be fatal. In a jet, not so much.

Even in a jet you shouldn't try to power out if you're getting stall warnings. Power obviously reduces altitude loss, but holding attitude (and even worse, holding altitude) while trying to power out in a jet can lead to a stall/spin (especially on a two or more engine jet). If both jet engines don't spool up at the same rate, the amount of yaw that you get could be more than you'd ever imagine possible in an airplane. That's the obvious problem. The other problem relates back to real life—the part where you're not trying to stall/spin a jet! The recovery needs to be taught so as to effect recovery in a variety of operational circumstances—not at 12,000', in level flight, in VMC, and mentally prepared for the low speed maneuver.

If you have your own L-39 and want to practice at altitude some maneuvers around stall speed, that's a different story.

PilotDAR wrote: A stall to the break from a full power, full flaps climb, maintaining heading, and safe roll control.

I had an over zealous PPL examiner who was quite a big wig in TC. He decided to make this a part of my PPL exam. I wasn't quite sure what he expected from me on the entry but he basically coached me to simulate a full flap (40 degree -C172) max power overshoot and just "pull as hard as I could until it stalled". Well, we were nearly vertical when we stalled and sure enough the 172 snapped over onto her back and it took me 800 feet to recover from the spin.

The examiner was quite disgusted and told me I had grossly exceeded tolerances, that the flight test was over and to return to the airport. I then politely asked him if he could demonstrate the exercise for me and to my luck he obliged.

He lost 2000 feet in the spin before he recovered.

I passed my flight test with flying colours and never heard another word about the full-flap, full power stall.

P.s. I'm not saying it can't be done without a spin and subsequently I did learn how to do them properly.

P.s. I'm not saying it can't be done without a spin and subsequently I did learn how to do them properly.

Excellent, it is possible. Lots of altitude is vital for this. Though it will seem odd, it forces the pilot to manage the situation aerodynamically, and with a gentle touch. It also simulates a go around, or mismanaged takeoff from a confined area (heavy floatplane off a short lake), or when you've got yourself into a canyon.

I was training this a few weeks back to a floatplane pilot, using a big cumulus as the obstacle to clear, or maneuver around, way slow. He learned to do it, and better yet, learned to keep from needing to!

If you have your own L-39 and want to practice at altitude some maneuvers around stall speed, that's a different story

At the risk of getting people here angry (people
don't like it when I mentio stuff like this) the L39
does a very nice tailslide. No compressor stall.

Not sure you'd want to try that in a Boeing or
Airbus

Colonel Sanders wrote:Quantitative tasks and skills that I would like to see:

**** Instrument Rating Flight Test ****
Hand-flown ILS down to CAT II minima (100 AGL) at night
with auto-pilot off. If multi-engine, one engine must be at
zero thrust. Tolerance: 1/2 scale deflection.

Currently I'm doing my MIFR and we do a simulated engine failure sometime around a late downwind/base turn to long final, while flying the ILS to minimums.

Guy looks at my log book and says, "You don't need a flight test." Then he signs my new CPL off down at the pub over wings and beer.

Pretty funny, Beef.

But just between you and I, I would rather have
the knowledge and skill - but no paper - instead
of having the paper but without the knowledge
and skill to back it up.

People have entirely too much regard for paper.

Beef: I really like you. I've known you for quite
some time. Pick one of these, and I will whip one
up for you:

1) MSc in Marine Biology from Dalhousie
2) PhD in Computer Science from U of T
3) ATP from Tanzania

You pay to have it framed, and put it on your wall.

http://www.dal.ca/academics/graduate_pr ... ology.html
http://web.cs.toronto.edu/program/prosp ... radwhy.htm
http://www.tcaa.go.tz/files/Personnel%2 ... 2010_3.pdf

Wut's the ATP one?

I agree. I was much more interested in increasing my skills over passing a flight test. I was also terrible at ground school/studying. Still am I guess. I wonder if I could sit in on the MRU ground school? Theorizing it's a course.

Ehlectric wrote:

Colonel Sanders wrote:Quantitative tasks and skills that I would like to see:

**** Instrument Rating Flight Test ****
Hand-flown ILS down to CAT II minima (100 AGL) at night
with auto-pilot off. If multi-engine, one engine must be at
zero thrust. Tolerance: 1/2 scale deflection.

Currently I'm doing my MIFR and we do a simulated engine failure sometime around a late downwind/base turn to long final, while flying the ILS to minimums.

Are you flying the ILS with an engine out in IMC conditions down to the DA? If not, you should be striving to get as much IMC time as you can while you are doing your MIFR. It doesn't make sense to only fly VMC if you have the opportunity for IMC.