Eye of Experience #28:The Evolution of Flight Training

Flight training has been consistently running 10 to20 years behind the state of the art. A prime example of this is the way I wastrained in the early 1940s. Aircraft engines produced back in the early 1930s(and before) were so undependable that every time one took off you could toss acoin as to whether or not the engine would quit. Consequently a great deal oftime in primary training was devoted to practicing "forced landings."The instructor would reduce the power to idle at several unexpected times duringevery training flight, and the student would pick out a suitable landing areaand glide toward it, explaining to the instructor just how he planned hisapproach (into the wind, parallel to the plowed furrows, etc.). Out in the opencountry we would glide right down to the flare before the instructor would givethe engine back for the climbout. Now, since engines are infinitely moredependable, we still teach the technique, but with not nearly the emphasis wedid back then, nor do we bring the airplane down anywhere near as low, at leastin populated areas. This is okay because the likelihood of losing an engine,short of brain-fade and running out of fuel, is quite remote. I used to tell mystudents, "These engines just don't quit," until one day one did. Butthat's another story.

Ground Reference Maneuvers?

There are several other maneuvers and procedures in the training curriculum thatprobably ought to be revised or eliminated. The original purpose of groundreference maneuvers was twofold. First, to train the student to divide hisattention between inside and outside references. The student is required to beconstantly checking his altitude, while also carefully observing his groundtrack. Even more important, however, was the objective of making the studentaware of what the wind is doing to his flight path at all times. Formerly, whenthe primary training airplanes were the J-3 Cub and the 7AC Champ, this was avery valid procedure. The airplanes were going 50 or 60 miles per hour and themaneuvers were performed at 400 to 600 feet above the surface, so the wind driftwas readily apparent. Today, however, with training airplanes that are going 90to 100 knots, and the maneuvers being accomplished 1,000 to 1,200 feet above thesurface, it requires a substantial wind for the drift to become apparent to thepilot.

The bottom-line purpose of all these ground reference maneuvers (S-turns acrossa road, turns about a point, eights along a road, and the rectangular course)was to prepare the student to fly a proper pattern at the airport, to shade thebank on the first turn to crosswind so that the crosswind leg is perpendicularto the departure path, to crab to the right while on the crosswind leg, to againshade the bank on the turn to downwind leg, to fly the downwind leg parallel tothe runway, to again shade the bank on the turn to the base leg, ending with acrab to the left, and finally, to shade the bank on the turn to final, ending upaligned with the runway. (All assuming the wind is right down the runway.)

In those days the traffic pattern at uncontrolled (non-towered) airports - andthe vast majority of training was done at such fields - was 400 to 600 feet abovethe ground, and again, wind drift was readily apparent. It was essential totrain the student with the ground reference maneuvers away from the airport toprepare the student for flying a good pattern at the airport, because, as I'verepeatedly pointed out, a good landing starts with a good pattern. Today, with1,000- to 1,200-foot patterns and faster airplanes, the time spent on thecrosswind and base legs is so short that the student hardly has an opportunityto observe what the wind is doing to his flight path.

Consequently, perhaps we should rethink the whole business of spending trainingtime on ground reference maneuvers. I certainly don't mean to imply that windawareness is not important - it is vitally important, but it can be forcefullybrought home to the student in more realistic ways than wasting training time onS-turns across the road,

Outside Surveillance

As pointed out above, another purpose for the ground reference maneuvers was totrain the pilot to divide his or her attention between inside and outsidereferences. With all the wonderful toys cockpits are filled with today, manypilots are lax at looking outside. Not only do they miss the scenery as they flyalong, but they might bump into something if they fail to look around fortraffic. Personally, I live in abject terror of a midair collision. I have thissupreme confidence in the equipment and my ability to extricate myself from abad situation to the point that there is almost nothing I can imagine that isnot survivable, with the exception of fire in the air and an encounter withanother airplane. Surviving a midair collision is rare, and failure to lookoutside the airplane is an invitation to just such an event. Consequently, it isabsolutely essential that we constantly look around outside.

Of course, in some of our large pressurized general aviation twins it is almostimpossible to see out even if we want to. I have sat in and operated a Duke andKing Air where my eye level was even with the top of the panel and I had toreally stretch to see over the nose. And it is even worse in the Citation.These airplanes are going so fast that by the time one spots traffic on acollision course, it may very well be too late to avoid hitting the other guy(or being hit by him). Of course, everywhere I flew those airplanes I was on anIFR flight plan, but, even so, a controller on the ground is a poor excuse forbeing alert to see for yourself. Please don't misunderstand: I want all theeyeballs I can get watching me, and everywhere I go when I'm VFR I takeadvantage of flight following provided by ATC.

Communication Radios and Navigation Avionics

I sometimes feel like a pioneer. When I learned to fly very few airplanes hadradios of any kind and those that did were equipped with what can only bedescribed as extremely primitive stuff by today's standards. We had low-frequency, tunable radios filled with vacuum tubes (or as our British friendsmore accurately say, electron valves), powered by huge, heavy power packs. Andwe had only one frequency for transmission with which we could talk to the toweror flight service. Our position reports were relayed to center from flightservice - nobody talked directly with the center! For navigation we had theAdcock Range (the four-course radio range) which put out four legs defining theairways. We also had ADF, but you had to turn the loop antenna by hand!

The advent of crystal-controlled VHF radios for communication was a wonderfulthing. Now, of course, instead of a bunch of crystals, we have frequencysynthesizers. Along with VHF radios for communication came the VOR. What awonderful thing! Now, even that won't be with us too much longer. With LORAN Cyou can go almost anywhere, and GPS is even better.

Flight Instruments

Along with these advances we have seen the old needle and ball (what we called a"Turn and Bank") replaced with the turn coordinator, the gyro compass(which turned the wrong way) with the heading indicator, and the old artificialhorizon, which is little changed, but is now called the attitude indicator. Andwith the HSI (horizontal situation indicator) it all comes together. Even betteris the flight director. All these thing have rendered flying infinitely easier,but somehow I keep feeling that the more complex we make something, the morethere is to go wrong. And, of course, all these wonderful gadgets tend to makeus keep our heads in the cockpit rather than maintaining vigilance as we lookaround outside.

Attitude instrument flying has replaced the old Stark system (needle, ball, andairspeed) as the means of keeping the airplane upright, and it is much better.It always works under any flight condition, which is more than can be said forthe Stark system! In the old days we centered the needle with the rudder and theball with the stick or yoke!

As Administrator

When they make me FAA Administrator (a likely event) there will be a bunch ofdrastic changes in the way pilots are certified. First, I will simplify thewritten (knowledge) exams, by eliminating all the chaff and including only theabsolutely essential knowledge. Then I would require everyone to get a score of100 percent! On each of the knowledge tests there is at least one question that pointsto a legal but dangerous situation (e.g., the ability to fly in IMC without aclearance in uncontrolled airspace).

Then I'll clean up the practical tests, including only those procedures andmaneuvers that are really important. In today's world of aviation we don't needthe ground reference maneuvers anymore. If the applicant can fly a good pattern,that's enough. After all, a good landing starts with a good pattern, and S-turnsacross a road, turns about a point, and the rectangular course are all in aid offlying a precise pattern.

I would also place more emphasis on emergency procedures. In training for theadvanced certificates and ratings, particularly the multiengine and various typeratings, great emphasis is placed on emergency procedures. Why not do the samewith the private and commercial? Although airplanes of modern design literallyhave to be forced into a spin, I would be sure to include spin training andtesting, at least by way of oral quizzing if not in actual flight.

Seat of the Pants

Today's pilots are taught to fly "by the numbers." On the takeoff theygo pounding down the runway until the magic number comes up on the airspeedindicator, then they ROTATE! This is not the way I was taught. I was taught tobring the stick (or yoke) back as I was rolling down the runway and hold the topof the cowl on the horizon. When the airplane got ready, it would fly itself offthe ground. Except when operating a complex airplane or a twin, I still do itthat way. It gives one a better feel for what is going on. Flying is a learnedskill. The pilot who flies by the numbers is apt to be somewhat jerky in his orher movements, whereas the one who flies by feel is likely to be smooth as he orshe manipulates the controls and the airplane does his bidding. There is nothingnatural about flying, but with enough practice the skills involved can become"second nature." I have always envied those rare individuals who strapan airplane on, fire it up, and it seems to begin to breathe with them. Theseare truly the great ones, and they fly more by feel than by the numbers.

Another flaw in the "fly by the numbers" system is that it encouragesthe pilot to bury his/her head in the cockpit and fail to properly look aroundoutside. And it breeds a type of pilot who is much too dependent on the airspeedindicator. Airspeed indicators are notoriously inaccurate, and can easilymislead a pilot. And what if the pilot loses his/her airspeed indicator ashappens with some degree of frequency? Many of today's pilots are so dependantupon the airspeed indicator that they are lost without it. All they need to knowis that if the airplane's attitude is right and the power setting is right, theairspeed simply has to be in the ballpark.

Today's pilots seem to have no concept of what that rudder is all about. Becauseairplanes are more efficiently designed, the pilot can get away with plantinghis/her feet firmly on the floor and steering the airplane through the sky likedriving a car down the road. I know a flight instructor who simply hated to dospins. When he had an instructor applicant he would turn him over to anotherinstructor for his spin training. This instructor, trained in the modern system,had students put him in no less than four inadvertent spins in his first sixmonths of instructing. I, on the other hand, in my first 56 years of instructinghad a student do this to me once! And that was because I wasn't paying properattention to the student's attempt to execute a steep power turn!

As John Deakin stated in a recent AVweb column, they keep tampering with Part 61of the regs (certification of pilots and flight instructors) without enhancingsafety an iota. There will no doubt be more on this subject in future Eye ofExperience columns.