MOSAIC Announcement consequences

[Jim Meade]

Anyone I care about and teach to fly, I put in enough time so they are aware they are incompetent without some instrument training and I give them enough so that they 1) know they don't have to die and 2) have a procedure that let's them get out of their predicament.  The weather and the instruments are not subject to our hope and faith.

Not all airplanes have autopilots, not all iPad run indefinitely or never break, and few SP or PP I've flown with can deal with the autopilot in a tense situation.  

If one always flies in CAVU weather, then instrument training is superfluous.  I've seen the weather change unpredictably pretty quickly and this is especially likely if one is in a "gotta get home" situation.

[Anticept]

On 8/6/2022 at 8:56 PM, Towner said:

Are they still spending a lot of time on pilotage and dead reckoning for cross country training, or are they pushing towards more modern methods?

Bit of both. The examiner has the right to "fail" instruments and test the pilot's ability to use all resources still available to them to locate where they are and where they are going. Electronics are an aid, not a crutch, and overreliance adds one more link to the chain of failures that may lead to one's demise one day, and not just make the checkride more difficult.

GPS makes it so easy. GPS outages do happen too. Overreliance on it shows, we call those people "children of the magenta" because they lack the skill to do anything except what the magic map box tells them to do, and when it goes wrong, they look like deer in headlights.

Or especially if they aren't verifying the information being presented... I had a wrong approach dialed in on the G1000. Caught it immediately because I habitually crosscheck the waypoints and altitudes with my plates. Dialed 28L instead of 28R at an unfamiliar airport. Approach would have seen it, but because of the early check, I fixed it at a time when workload was still low. I learned that the hard way during my stage check during instrument training, and it saved my ass during my instrument checkride too because it is easy to misdial during a bumpy ride.

My primary students are not allowed to use electronics to do the planning for them. It's wiz wheel and plotters. I would accept skyvector, but only to measure distance and bearing, and I still have to see them have the capability to measure on a chart, and calculations are by hand. The purpose is to exercise and *understand* things like magnetic variation, IAS, CAS, TAS, etc.

If you walk into a checkride armed with paper instead of electronics, the examiner is not going to waste time on it. They might ask a question or to to confirm you understand it, then nothing else, because if you can do it by hand, you just answered a lot if questions already and there is no need to dwell on it. Feel free to use the GPS on your fight checkride. Show off how you correlate what is on your paper plan with what is on the GPS. But be ready if and when they turn off the GPS.

Warmi: the instrument practice is supposed to just focus on being able to keep the airplane upright until ATC can get you out of trouble. Nothing more. It's obviously inadequate for long term retention, and I feel like it should be part of flight reviews to just keep the rubber side down.

If you really want to be prepared for a bad day, all I ask you to show me you can do the 4 fundamentals under the hood and how to ask for help, even if it's just asking on 121.5. Straight and level, turns, climbs, and descents (especially a level turn 180... you came from VMC, turn around and go back to it!). That would cover nearly every accidental IMC situation. You don't need to show me approaches, because what you really need to do is just get to VFR, your chance of survival is much better than trying to ask you to do something that requires high skill when you aren't regularly practicing it.

[Warmi]

49 minutes ago, Jim Meade said:

Anyone I care about and teach to fly, I put in enough time so they are aware they are incompetent without some instrument training and I give them enough so that they 1) know they don't have to die and 2) have a procedure that let's them get out of their predicament.  The weather and the instruments are not subject to our hope and faith.

Not all airplanes have autopilots, not all iPad run indefinitely or never break, and few SP or PP I've flown with can deal with the autopilot in a tense situation.  

If one always flies in CAVU weather, then instrument training is superfluous.  I've seen the weather change unpredictably pretty quickly and this is especially likely if one is in a "gotta get home" situation.

Instrument training is not like learning to ride a bike - you don’t retain this skill unless you are current and furthermore 3 instrument hours years ago during your primary training are basically worthless and won’t help you if you happen to get into a sticky situation as a VFR pilot ( as attested by numerous VFR into IMC accidents , with pretty much all victims presumably having at least 3 IFR hours under their belt )

Obviously, the best thing is to never get even close to having this dilemma in the first place but , short of getting IFR training and staying current, having a functional autopilot is much better investment as far as emergency IMC out.

Actually , personally I think the biggest benefit of having these 3 hours under the hood is to demonstrate to a student pilot how unbelievably disorienting flying without outside reference can be end up being and it is certainly not something to f*** around with.

[Jim Meade]

The question as I understand it is whether 3 hours of flight with reference to instruments is useful.  If I am wrong on that question, just tell me and I'll quit sharing my CFI-I and charter pilot experience.

As I said, the three hours demonstrates to a person how disorienting flying without outside reference can be but it gives them the hope that they can take positive actions.  That seems to be stipulated.

What can one teach in three hours that can be useful years later without refresher (of course, refresher training as available to each of us all the time as needed.)?

You teach instrument scan.  You teach flying straight and level, which usually takes about an hour for people to figure out control forces, trim, scan, etc..  You teach climb and descent at 500 fpm noting the RPM, flap settings and pitch attitude of your airplane.  

You teach timed level and ascending/descending turns rolling out on a given heading.  Takes another hour.

You cap this off with some descents under the hood.  Turn East or West and set power and controls for a 500 fpm rate.  Keep hands off stick and keep the compass on track with the rudder.  Watch attitude indicator/turn&bank if have one.

The knowledge and confidence in these skills I do not believe decays much with time.  My experience is the difference in student confidence after having practiced these procedures is significant and worth the 3 hours instruction time.  Depending on instruments and time, one can teach considerably more.

If you have the money for an autopilot and it always works, that is a great advantage if one finds oneself in deteriorating weather.  

Indeed, one does see many SP pilots who only fly CAVU.  In some parts of the country, weather is predictable enough that flight in less than CAVU is reasonable.

I'm not going to keep arguing here.  My point is I think 3 hours of instrument training is useful and worth the money.  If you disagree, just say so.  I won't respond.

[Tom Baker]

On 8/6/2022 at 6:25 PM, Warmi said:

- longer cross country solo - about 40 minutes longer in the air …hmm,  really ? 2 weeks after getting my ticket I will have more cross country time than that.

I'm not sure where you came up with your difference, but it is 5 hours solo cross country for private pilot. For sport pilot there is not a time limit, but one solo cross country with 75nm total distance, with a full stop landing at 2 points, and a straight line distance at least 25 miles from the original point of departure. In theory this could be an out and back flight to an airport 37.5 NM from the departure point. With a CT and minimum ground time this is less than an hour flight.

There is only one hour difference in the training requirements though, 2 vs 3 hours.

Also remember that if you are doing your solo cross country in an airplane with a Vh greater than 87kts you must have some instrument training.

[Tom Baker]

Regarding instrument training. I had a former student tell me that the instrument training that I had given him for his private pilot 25 plus years earlier saved his life. I didn't just teach him how to fly on instruments, I taught him how to get out of trouble if he accidently got into instrument conditions. It is more about how to fly the airplane in that circumstance, rather than how to fly instruments.

 

[Madhatter]

3 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

Regarding instrument training. I had a former student tell me that the instrument training that I had given him for his private pilot 25 plus years earlier saved his life. I didn't just teach him how to fly on instruments, I taught him how to get out of trouble if he accidently got into instrument conditions. It is more about how to fly the airplane in that circumstance, rather than how to fly instruments.

 

I agree. The few hours under the hood will eliminate the shock of sudden IFR for the first time and a panic moment. No matter how long it's been you will understand its not so bad to do a 180 and get out. There will always be those who push the limits, I know of many who lost over the years, not much you can do about those types.

[Towner]

17 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

I'm not sure where you came up with your difference, but it is 5 hours solo cross country for private pilot. For sport pilot there is not a time limit, but one solo cross country with 75nm total distance, with a full stop landing at 2 points, and a straight line distance at least 25 miles from the original point of departure. In theory this could be an out and back flight to an airport 37.5 NM from the departure point. With a CT and minimum ground time this is less than an hour flight.

There is only one hour difference in the training requirements though, 2 vs 3 hours.

Also remember that if you are doing your solo cross country in an airplane with a Vh greater than 87kts you must have some instrument training.

Maybe that’s why Corey’s idea of one license, with endorsements, should be the way to go. Give a very basic ticket with limits for those who want it that way. Let them add on as they want. For those that want more from the beginning, they can get the endorsements during their initial training.

Of course then comes the issue of how the regs would be written. What needs an endorsement and what doesn’t. What are the limitations for the most basic license. If well written , I think it would be great. Poorly written  could be trouble. And of course the issue of what constitutes a medical will still be an issue.

Never finished my instrument rating. Wish I had, but can’t without the medical. Still looking at doing what training I can with a limited panel and knowing it will have to be with an instructor, or at least safety pilot on board.

[FlyingMonkey]

On 8/5/2022 at 10:37 AM, tevbax said:

Latest From Dan Johnson

Well, here's to another year of waiting.

At least there's this:

"Privileges for Sport Pilots are likely to increase as well. More than one FAA official stated this at Oshkosh 2022."

[FlyingMonkey]

On 8/5/2022 at 10:53 AM, tevbax said:

Here's my take on this.

20 hours of training. Yeah, no one is doing a zero to SPT in 20 hours. Personally, I would have been done with SPT a LOT earlier if I would have had something easy to land (I started in a CTLS). My CFI's along the way drilled me on radio comms, flying into congested airspace, and knowing that I was going to spend a lot of time in these areas, always asked for something more difficult. Even though it was not required under SPT, my CFI still ran some hood time with me so I had a clear idea of what to do if I really messed up. This like of "20 hours, you're barely a pilot" kills me. Ground ops - I use Foreflight with location mapping. It makes larger airports a breeze. 
 

My experience was similar.  It took me about 40 hours total, it might have been sooner but I started at a bad flight school in an airplane even harder to fly'land than a CT - a Zodiac 601XL.  Once I switched school and airplane (to a tenam P92) things went much smoother.  I did my cross country flight using a sectional and a compass -- I was not allowed to have a GPS.  I did a lot of landings, because LSA are just harder to land than a 172.  I think the 20 hour rule is fine, but there are VERY few pilots that can do that, just as there are very few that get a PP in 40hrs.  Most that do have had a lot of "unlogged" flight experience.

As I have said numerous times and that most PP rated pilots don't know, is that on a SP checkride, you have to demonstrate *exactly* the same skills and knowledge as a PP, with the exceptions of radio navigation and hood time.  Airspace knowledge, FARs, how to read everything on a sectional, landing and flying skills, 100% the same.  Having a PP does not make you a better pilot than SP, it just provides more privileges.  The same as a Commercial or ATP rating doesn't make you a better pilot than a PP. 

Most PP I know could not land my airplane in a 20kt crosswind, or get it into the short grass fields I operate on.  I can do these things because I consistently practice them, which is the key to all aviation proficiency.  There are awesome Sport Pilots, and there are terrible Private Pilots.  There are amazing ultralight pilots and marginal ATPs.  Ratings don't matter to skill and aviation knowledge.  Honestly I'm constantly shocked at the number of guys flying around who know very little about aviation, aerodynamics, or how to fly their airplanes well. Most of them manage to keep the shiny side up, and that's about as much as they hope for.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

On 8/6/2022 at 11:41 PM, Jim Meade said:

If one always flies in CAVU weather, then instrument training is superfluous.  I've seen the weather change unpredictably pretty quickly and this is especially likely if one is in a "gotta get home" situation.

Yes.  All pilots either need to know how to avoid the weather or when to bail on it and wait it out.

[FlyingMonkey]

On 8/6/2022 at 8:56 PM, Towner said:

Are they still spending a lot of time on pilotage and dead reckoning for cross country training, or are they pushing towards more modern methods?

I'm not sure how it is now, but when I got my SP it was all pilotage, dead reckoning, and sectional.  i was not allowed to use a GPS on a cross country or on my checkride, under the theory that "you can always use those easier methods, but you need these foundational skills to fall back on if you have to."  They pulled the 496 out of the airplane for training.  This was at Lockwood Aviation.

[Anticept]

On 8/8/2022 at 10:38 AM, Towner said:

Never finished my instrument rating. Wish I had, but can’t without the medical. Still looking at doing what training I can with a limited panel and knowing it will have to be with an instructor, or at least safety pilot on board.

I always found it funny how these exams require a medical to be honest. That would already be covered by exercising privelages, why require the medical as a testing prerequisite too? Those requirements were written well before sport pilots became a thing, so I am not sure why it was added.

Might have to dig for the preamble for when it was written. Closest thing I can think of is giving a basis for denial in case an examiner forgot to check.

[Towner]

1 hour ago, FlyingMonkey said:

My experience was similar.  It took me about 40 hours total, it might have been sooner but I started at a bad flight school in an airplane even harder to fly'land than a CT - a Zodiac 601XL.  Once I switched school and airplane (to a tenam P92) things went much smoother.  I did my cross country flight using a sectional and a compass -- I was not allowed to have a GPS.  I did a lot of landings, because LSA are just harder to land than a 172.  I think the 20 hour rule is fine, but there are VERY few pilots that can do that, just as there are very few that get a PP in 40hrs.  Most that do have had a lot of "unlogged" flight experience.

As I have said numerous times and that most PP rated pilots don't know, is that on a SP checkride, you have to demonstrate *exactly* the same skills and knowledge as a PP, with the exceptions of radio navigation and hood time.  Airspace knowledge, FARs, how to read everything on a sectional, landing and flying skills, 100% the same.  Having a PP does not make you a better pilot than SP, it just provides more privileges.  The same as a Commercial or ATP rating doesn't make you a better pilot than a PP. 

Most PP I know could not land my airplane in a 20kt crosswind, or get it into the short grass fields I operate on.  I can do these things because I consistently practice them, which is the key to all aviation proficiency.  There are awesome Sport Pilots, and there are terrible Private Pilots.  There are amazing ultralight pilots and marginal ATPs.  Ratings don't matter to skill and aviation knowledge.  Honestly I'm constantly shocked at the number of guys flying around who know very little about aviation, aerodynamics, or how to fly their airplanes well. Most of them manage to keep the shiny side up, and that's about as much as they hope for.

 

And that is why I asked. It took you about 40 hours for your SP, in an airplane that is tougher to learn in than a 172. Yet a private pilot, who is learning basically the same thing in a docile airplane takes an average of about 70 hours for his PP. Why?

I think it also helps support Corey’s idea of a basic license with endorsements. I realize that our system is partially built on endorsements now, but make it all one license with endorsements all the way through. Have a basic license but want to fly at night…get the endorsement. If you wanted all the rights of a PP, simply do all your training at once.

[Towner]

And I do understand that the PP training requires a few extra items, such as simulated instrument and controlled airspace, but it sounds like the guys that got their SP pretty much had the extra training anyway.

[Towner]

I’m personally still up in the air about dead reckoning. We all use pilotage to some degree. When I fly local for a burger or just for fun, I recognize landmarks and don’t need gps. I still have it on just for the ads-b aspect, but don’t need to look at the map.

On a long cross country, if I were to loose gps, I could still finish my flight by pilotage and a map without to much trouble.

But dead reckoning? Does anyone ever really use it anymore? All of my flight plans are done on Foreflight. Even if GPS quit, I should still have the map with the course set in. I have a 496 in the panel as a backup (would loose the AP without GPS). Just the map and course, even with a crosswind correction, wouldn’t be that difficult.

Even if you lost the course line, a map and some pilotage should get you where you want to go. It would be some work around class B areas, but very doable. It seems once the flight plan is made by some computer program, dead reckoning isn’t necessary.

Being a geek, I found learning pilotage and dead reckoning pretty easy, but I still question the need to learn dead reckoning.

[Anticept]

A perspective to offer: private pilot qualifications were written in one form or another a very, very long time ago. So some things on it, such as the controlled airspace stuff, look funny, but back then there were substantially fewer places that had towers.

Regarding dead reckoning: it demonstrates understanding of all the variables of flight. We may have things like GPS these days, but what GPS itself doesn't tell you is WHY it takes more fuel today to do that route than it did last week. To us experienced pilots, it's a no brainer.

But man, let me really stress: I've only started instructing recently and I now realize exactly why the FAA does some of the requirements the way they do. There are people who effortlessly understand flight, but a good portion of them have to study hard to grasp even the fundamentals, and all these different overlapping skill demonstration requirements is to try and weed out the students that are just memorizing the motions from those who understand and adapt.

It really helped me understand why my instrument instructor in Florida always said flying with me is like taking a vacation.

[Anticept]

What Jim means is there are airline pilots end up flying IFR for so long that going back to VFR in small aircraft without all the supporting avionics can at times, take a little effort.

[FlyingMonkey]

8 hours ago, Towner said:

And that is why I asked. It took you about 40 hours for your SP, in an airplane that is tougher to learn in than a 172. Yet a private pilot, who is learning basically the same thing in a docile airplane takes an average of about 70 hours for his PP. Why?

I think it also helps support Corey’s idea of a basic license with endorsements. I realize that our system is partially built on endorsements now, but make it all one license with endorsements all the way through. Have a basic license but want to fly at night…get the endorsement. If you wanted all the rights of a PP, simply do all your training at once.

Part of the reason is I flew 6 hours a day for about five days straight at the end.  I didn’t have any time to forget anything.

[Ken]

https://www.flyingmag.com/brazil-expands-lsa-regs-for-larger-faster-aircraft/?fbclid=IwAR1GjfSIZ-cqspzvOZN_LNjTUfkPzv4yjTNc6YMY2L9C1kUDpa09-GwZFqo

[Towner]

3 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Part of the reason is I flew 6 hours a day for about five days straight at the end.  I didn’t have any time to forget anything.

Well, flying 6 hours a day is one way to get it done quickly and efficiently! I know some guys that only due 2-4 hours a month. They spent more time reviewing their last lesson than learning something new!

[Towner]

2 hours ago, Ken said:

https://www.flyingmag.com/brazil-expands-lsa-regs-for-larger-faster-aircraft/?fbclid=IwAR1GjfSIZ-cqspzvOZN_LNjTUfkPzv4yjTNc6YMY2L9C1kUDpa09-GwZFqo

Very interesting, I just wish it started with, “FAA approves” instead of Brazil. Up to 185 knots too! Wow!

[Towner]

12 hours ago, Anticept said:

A perspective to offer: private pilot qualifications were written in one form or another a very, very long time ago. So some things on it, such as the controlled airspace stuff, look funny, but back then there were substantially fewer places that had towers.

Regarding dead reckoning: it demonstrates understanding of all the variables of flight. We may have things like GPS these days, but what GPS itself doesn't tell you is WHY it takes more fuel today to do that route than it did last week. To us experienced pilots, it's a no brainer.

But man, let me really stress: I've only started instructing recently and I now realize exactly why the FAA does some of the requirements the way they do. There are people who effortlessly understand flight, but a good portion of them have to study hard to grasp even the fundamentals, and all these different overlapping skill demonstration requirements is to try and weed out the students that are just memorizing the motions from those who understand and adapt.

It really helped me understand why my instrument instructor in Florida always said flying with me is like taking a vacation.

I’m still not sure dead reckoning needs to be emphasized the way it is in training. People just aren’t using dead reckoning after flight training. It was drilled in to me 25 years ago, but I just don’t see it being used much anymore. Maybe it should be taught, but more as an understanding of how it all works than being the main way you are taught to make all the flight plans and complete the flights during training.

While I understand what you are saying about teaching a student about it so he understands “why” things work the way they do, does it need to go much farther than that? Maybe less emphasis on dead reckoning and more on learning various means of electronic navigation. Foreflight was new to me 2 years ago and it took me a while to learn some of the less common, but very useful, functions. Maybe more time spent on electronic navigation and less on dead reckoning during initial training. Of course, new pilots may be getting taught a fair amount of electronic navigation and I’m just not aware of it.

Again, it may sound like I’m against dead reckoning, but I’m still unsure how I really feel about it. That’s why I appreciate the input from others.

[Anticept]

Nothing solidifies that understanding more than practice with results to examine and learn from.

You might forget how to do dead reckoning 25 years later, or maybe not, but that's not the point... you don't do S-Turns and Lazy Eights either unless you're becoming an instructor, but S-turns and Lazy Eights aren't the point, it's the airmanship you develop.

Real learning is complex, and applying the lessons to actual scenarios are far more effective than just lecturing definitions. The more the various scenarios you can apply, the easier the core concepts are retained long term.

Punching buttons into foreflight doesn't teach you the stuff behind flying, it teaches you how to rely on foreflight and follow the magenta line. Push them in a different order, and you get different results... but it's still teaching foreflight.

The more inquisitive students might ask *why* different flights on different days take different amounts of time, but I am again speaking from experience here: these lessons aren't targeting those students... it's targeting those who don't care to learn unless forced to.

[Tom Baker]

7 hours ago, Towner said:

I’m still not sure dead reckoning needs to be emphasized the way it is in training. People just aren’t using dead reckoning after flight training. It was drilled in to me 25 years ago, but I just don’t see it being used much anymore. Maybe it should be taught, but more as an understanding of how it all works than being the main way you are taught to make all the flight plans and complete the flights during training.

While I understand what you are saying about teaching a student about it so he understands “why” things work the way they do, does it need to go much farther than that? Maybe less emphasis on dead reckoning and more on learning various means of electronic navigation. Foreflight was new to me 2 years ago and it took me a while to learn some of the less common, but very useful, functions. Maybe more time spent on electronic navigation and less on dead reckoning during initial training. Of course, new pilots may be getting taught a fair amount of electronic navigation and I’m just not aware of it.

Again, it may sound like I’m against dead reckoning, but I’m still unsure how I really feel about it. That’s why I appreciate the input from others.

The rules for sport pilot were not written for 120 knot airplanes with three GPS's and an iPad. This type of airplane came about because of the American desire for bigger, faster, and more stuff. Because the FAA set limits the manufactures designed aircraft that would push to the edge of those limits. What we have now is not what the FAA envisioned when the rules were written. Because of what we have now the FAA has had to make changes to the original rules to accommodate the the faster aircraft. There are still people learning to fly in the simple airplanes, and changing the navigation training requirements would not be fair to them.