The Brainteaser Quiz #224 bonus question asked how readers were adapting to the brave new world of ACS, which replaced the moldering old PTS. For those who don’t keep the FAA’s Acronyms and Abbreviations handbook on their bedside table, ACS means Airman Certification Standards, and PTS is the lovable — but aging — Practical Test Standards by which most of us earned our certificates and ratings.
Responses ranged from the not-so-happy to the schoolboy crush on the cute, new, testing policy in the classroom. As with all Brainteaser surveys, the responses were scientifically evaluated and cleansed of any identity that might lead the FAA or Russian hackers to the sources. You know who you are, and now the flying world will know what you’re thinking, beginning with the …
Not So Happy
“ACS not needed … PC police at work,” a reader expressed his/her opinion of PC overreach in the aviation training environment.
“It’s another way for the FAA (personnel) to make themselves look important.”
“The FAA keeps trying ‘to make flying safer,’ (but) ACS is just another career-enhancing activity for the employees involved in the program.”
Career enhancement opportunities aside, it’s hoped that the FAA would continue all reasonable efforts “to make flying safer.” Of course, it’s that “reasonable” angle that occasionally gets out of whack.
“ACS, though well-intended, is terribly confusing to read and to comprehend in order to become useful to this average ASMELI (a smelly?) pilot. It removes far too much from the domain of the CFI — after all, instructors are taught standards and core knowledge — and, overall, appears to be an awkward attempt to instruct by micromanagement. Quality of typical didactic lesson plans, materials and presentation in existence appears to be excellent overall. Certification standards will never survive as ‘lesson plans.’ “
Changes to slow-flight demonstration standards tweaked more than a few CFI noses (including mine) out of joint.
“I’m concerned that in redefining when an applicant should recover from a stall, we are teaching dependence on the artificial stall warning and not how the aircraft behaves as it approaches a stall.”
Let me hear an, “Amen!” on that. And this:
“Latest changes to slow flight diminish safety and will lead to more stall/spin accidents, as new pilots will be unfamiliar with airplane characteristic in this flight regime.”
“Since the Private Pilot ACS went into effect, I’ve trained students only for the Sport Pilot certificate (which still uses PTS). Now, some of them are upgrading to Private Pilot, and there are inconsistencies between the training they received for Sport Pilot and what they need for Private Pilot. Since Sport Pilot should be a subset of Private Pilot, these inconsistencies need to be addressed by the FAA. In other words, we either need a Sport Pilot ACS now, or need Private Pilot to revert back to the PTS, if we want to use the Sport Pilot certificate as a portal of entry into aviation, and a stepping stone toward higher ratings. Yes, you may quote me.”
And we did, although we did so without using your name … which, technically, doesn’t make it a quote. Sorry.
Three readers went straight for the FAA’s administrative jugular with variations on: “It was a waste of time and money!”
This comment expands on the wasted resources theme by adding, “Waste of time, effort and CFI energy.” But then the respondent waffled under self-reflection: “Might be marginally helpful when/if the FAA coordinates codes with the written results.” And mumbled to doubtful conclusion with: “I think, maybe, perhaps, potentially, arguably, we’ll see.” Where’s the Tylenol?
This experienced pilot looked ACS square in its pimply face and growled: “In 2014 I celebrated my 50 years of aviation with the Wright Brothers award. When I started in aviation, FAR Parts 1, 61, and 91 were less than 1/2-inch thick; now they are about 1.5 inches thick.”
Doing the math for you, that’s three times as much paper, assuming same-weight paper and no e-books. The venerable aviator continues: “I retired from the airlines in 2010 as an instructor, check airman. The regs at the beginning were complete and easy to follow; now you need Boston lawyer just to keep you out of trouble. I go to FAA meetings and find that they (FAA reps) can’t answer some of the questions that airman ask. The KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle still works, but the FAA must justify itself. You had a pretty good thing with the PTS. Why screw it up? The PTS worked just fine. I see no additional benefit.” The reader concluded with a Cassandra warning: “It’s done no matter what we may think.” The horror … the horror …
(Author’s tip: I can get you a Des Moines attorney for half the price of those hacks in Boston.)
No Big Thing If You Keep an Open Mind
ACS fatalism moderated slightly with this comment: “Though I’ll learn to live with the ACS, I fail to see how this benefits students, instructors, examiners or produces more capable pilots. But …” (You could almost hear the reader sigh, here) “… since it’s always adapt or die, methods to prepare students for a new checking paradigm will be found and implemented. The question of who will benefit from it and in what ways is a valid concern. I’ve read the pro-ACS argument and simply don’t find it compelling.”
Yeah, but wait until you see the movie! Tom Cruise as the tough FAA ACS coordinator with a heart of gold … don’t want to spoil it, but the IACRA action sequences are even better than the NTSB shootout in Sully.
Theatrics continued as this reader channeled William Shakespeare with a joyless ACS endorsement by saying, “Much ado about nothing. Written questions should have been updated long time ago, but they will hardly have any effect on safety.” To which you’re probably thinking, “How much better it is to weep at joy than to joy at weeping.” (Much Ado About Nothing, Act 1, Scene 1)
Even, here, with lukewarm support for ACS, the slow-flight toad, again, raised its warty head. “ACS has some good points, but the new slow-flight requirements are a big step in the wrong direction.”
“ACS does a good job of relating written test questions to the practical test.” But … “It does nothing to promote scenario-based training. In fact, it detracts from scenario-based training with the new definition of slow flight.”
Wholehearted ambivalence continued unencumbered by details: “Haven’t had any direct involvement with new ACS. Time will tell how new system will fare.”
“I haven’t had the great pleasure of needing to read the new ACS yet. I am sure that I will, eventually.”
Having no familiarity with a subject should never be an impediment toward forming an opinion. Works in politics. Also, having actually read the ACS, I assure you it was no pleasure.
Generally, a Good Thing
“I think it’s going to take a bit of time to get fully used to it, but getting rid of irrelevant items in the written test was overdue; same with the practical test. Scenario-based exercises allow for the student to demonstrate application and correlation rather than just basic “by the book” understanding. A pilot must always be prepared for the unexpected, and there is no better time to learn this than from the start.” To which many seasoned instructors say, “We’ve been teaching that way all along.”
A pair of succinct responses: “It’s a step in the right direction.” And, “Generally considered easier to use.”
ACS enthusiasm spooled up nicely with these comments:
“I’m a DPE and feel the ACS transition has been pretty painless. It will be much more useful when the learning codes disappear and are replaced with the new system for the knowledge tests. The risk management makes it clearer as to what arrears are to be evaluated.”
“I like the new ACS standards.” How much? “A lot. It was a much needed change, and they did an excellent job.”
“The format is logical and well laid-out. Incorporating and coding elements of the Knowledge Test will make it a lot easier, as a CFI, to provide the necessary post-‘written’ remedial training.”
“The FAA’s online presentation was well done and worthwhile.” One wonders who in the FAA wrote that one.
Plaudits continued with, “A good change in the right direction.”
“I believe the new ACS standards are great, well thought-out, specific in detail and easier to assimilate.”
“I actually favor ACS. It involves the prospective candidate (student) more with actual scenario-based situations and instilling proper safety considerations and actions.”
“I recently completed the Instrument knowledge exam after the new test standards were put in place. The revisions to the exam were a welcome change, as I did not have to do anything associated with NDBs or to work out obscure performance requirements. Overall, I did OK on it too.” Congratulations.
Although a few responses wandered slightly off the ACS opinion beam, their comments are worth noting:
“What would make flying safer?” this reader rhetorically asks. “Keeping the costs down, the access better, simplify, simplify, simplify the rules for certification and finally make the FAA culture more supportive of GA, not enemies of it. Flying is no different than vitamins.”
Oh? Curious where this is headed.
“Take them everyday and they work well, take them only once in a while, the effect is minimal. Flying costs too much and it’s little wonder fewer people are engaging themselves in an honorable sport.”
OK, not really about ACS or PTS per se but duly noted, as is this comment:
“Get with program, do your jobs and keep GA healthy. We had a fire south of San Jose, Calif., last week and I saw a GA airport, South County, serve as a temporary air base for a fleet of probably 20 helicopters. I wonder how many homes and lives were saved merely (because) there (was) a nearby GA airport?”
This reader might have been slightly off the same ACS/PTS beam but did offer an opinion related to the survey question: “ACS, SchmayCS — who cares when there’s bitching about the expense of ADS-B compliance to be done!”
This laconic reader summed things up in two words: “No comment.”
While this one took twice as many to put the ACS/PTS debate to rest: “Just a dumb question!”
That’s the lot, and even though there’s always bitching to be done on just about every topic, the readers have spoken, we’ve listened, and ACS is here to stay, even if we’re not sure just what the mangy beast really is.
