Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1357068
Let's say that the powers that be in Cologne decide to put us lot in charge of a complete re-write of the PPL and CPL syllabi. What would we do?


I'll offer some starting thoughts:-

(1) Leave the basic handling stuff alone, it works fine.

(2) For both licences, expand the number of potentially examinable emergencies into systems failures, partial engine failures - a list that can be driven by AAIB reports. Significantly increase the amount of time spent on management of emergencies.

(3) Stop obsessing about accurate ded-reckoned map-and-stopwatch nav. Nav should be done by proper integration of all of the tools available to the pilot: including GPS. HOWEVER, in a reversal of the current situation, skill test diversions have to be flown with all the nav kit turned off, and entirely by ded-reckoning, and to a real airfield with a requirement for RT and a landing.

(Re: 2 and 3, on the CPL particularly - people coming off CPL courses are in the most part going to become either airline pilots - in which case a machine will do most of the precision nav and they really only earn their money when stuff is going wrong, or flying instructors - in which case they are seldom going very far, but will have the regular fun of students trying to kill them. Either way, emergencies are far more important than hand-flown nav.)

(4) NO terminology based questions in any TK exams. It's all to be about understanding the stuff that matters, and not about where the edge of a country's airspace is (it's marked on the map, who cares!), or what sort (name!) of gyro is in an AI. Similarly, PofF/Aerodynamics to be narrowed down to things that pilots actually need, not bored aeronautical engineers decided to inflict on them. Ditto HPL and physicians.

(5) The CPL flying syllabus to have spinning in it, and properly, not just a quick spin and recovery to tick a box; commercially qualified pilots should be confident to enter and recover a suitably qualified aeroplane from a spin. (No I wouldn't put it back in the PPL syllabus, I think that argument is done - but with EASA removing it from the FI syllabus, and many commercial pilots never having been instructors anyhow, it needs to be somewhere.)

(6) Make air law open book - you'd look stuff up in the real world after all, so why make people waste all that time memorising things that no sane human being would rely upon memory for.

(7) Pre-test PPL requirements to include having flown off both hard and grass runways, and been shown how to convert onto a new aircraft type.

Anybody care to develop, or disagree with, my arguments?

G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer on Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1357070
Gertie wrote:Are instructors really not trained in spinning any more??


I think that the FIC schools are still doing it from habit, but it's been removed from the FI Skill test.

G
By Balliol
#1357074
CAA Standards Doc 10:

Spinning: For the initial issue of an FI certificate the CAA requires that a full spin is included at some stage during the assessment of competence. This may be on the same flight or on a separate flight.
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1357076
Spinning is currently a required part of the flight instruction course - Exercise 11b, p312:

EXERCISE 11b: SPIN RECOVERY AT THE DEVELOPED STAGE
(a) Long briefing objectives:
{1) spin entry;
(2) recognition and identification of spin direction;
(3) spin recovery;
(4) use of controls;
(5) effects of power or flaps (flap restriction applicable to type);
(6) effect of the CG upon spinning characteristics;
(7) spinning from various flight attitudes;
(8) aeroplane limitation;
(9) safety checks.
(b) Air exercise:
(1) aeroplane limitations;
(2) safety checks;
(3) spin entry;
(4) recognition and identification of the spin direction;
(5) spin recovery (reference to flight manual);
(6) use of controls;
(7) effects of power or flaps (restrictions applicable to aeroplane type);
(8) spinning and recovery from various flight attitudes.
#1357079
(1) Agreed.

(2) Examiners can already test anything within reason - I do partial engine failure on takeoff on most skill tests. I think the problem is scant teaching / schools teaching a narrow range of emergencies rather than a syllabus issue.

(3) The syllabus and test schedules give full ability for integrated training with GPS, it is just that many school aircraft are poorly equipped and school teaching hasn't evolved.

(4) Agreed.

(5) I think the real issue is about unusual attitude / upset recognition and recovery training. This is already being mandated and some schools are leading the way - CTC and OAA for example in their integrated training. Spinning is just one particular flight situation - the debate should be around the totality of the stall / upset training experience I think.

(6) Too right, especially with e based exams shoudl eb easy to include pdf of reference material for candidates to use.

(7) Gold plating! Will just increase course costs and time and not essential competence for licence issue.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1357080
I stand corrected; I thought I'd picked up on the grapevine that EASA had deleted spinning from the FI skill test and there was a bit of a spat going on with the UK wanting to retain it.

However, I'd still put it in the CPL syllabus anyhow.

G
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1357082
However getting off topic. Spinning knowledge should be there somewhere. I'd have thought it unlikely that if an airline pilot manages to get themselves into a spin, they will be able to get out of it again.
I think dead reckoning does need learnt. It is a required backup when all else goes tits up (like last time I went flying with SkyDemon running after an unknown to be Android update). So it needs to be in the test some how. I can see the test have something along the lines of at least one let must be by Dead Reckoning. Diversion would be difficult, if the first thing you need to do is work out where you are...

I agree that Air Law should be open book / book equivalent (open AIP?)). It is changing so much / quickly at the moment. Key thing to learn is how to keep track of the many many changes but also where to look up other country's versions of law.

I agree no terminology specific questions but there will be reasons for much of the terminology, so there needs to be an understanding of what a METAR etc is.

I would like to see randomly generated questions for test papers. There is no point in having an exam if people can rote learn answers in advance.
#1357085
152 approaches at less than 70kts.

Instructors to provide proof that they've started shaving.

Short field take-offs and landings using short runways.

Airfield etiquette, such as no landing lights whilst on the ground.

7 degree approaches.

Side slipping.

Accelerated stalls.

Some night flying.

Leaning the mixture.

Spinning.

More spinning.

Aircraft washing.

The complete removal of the word Incipient.
Last edited by Joe Dell on Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By flybymike
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1357087
I would like to see randomly generated questions for test papers. There is no point in having an exam if people can rote learn answers in advance.

Rote learning is not necessarily a bad thing

What is learnt is learnt by whatever means is used.

I rote learnt all my times tables as a small boy and it has served me well all my life.
They are finally reintroducing it into education after discovering that certain politicians could not do multiplication.
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1357091
In my day job as (non-aviation) examiner, we don't mark down rote learning but we come down heavily on rote behaviour....

Peter
By jwoolard
#1357092
(3) The syllabus and test schedules give full ability for integrated training with GPS, it is just that many school aircraft are poorly equipped and school teaching hasn't evolved.


And that is precisely why it should be mandated, or at least strongly recommended.

Personally, I think the current set of panel mounted avionics are counter-productive for VFR flight (this is a whole different discussion). Portable app-based systems (skydemon, EasyVFR, Garmin etc) are much more useful, and much much cheaper... The cost of an iPad (or even cheaper, a nexus) per-aircraft and a subscription could surely be absorbed by most schools.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1357094
Bill McCarthy wrote:Include a section on how many bliddy different kinds of PPL there are and how to keep them current !! That should add a few hours to the syllabus.


And whilst at it, the rules about Permit aircraft.

G