This isn’t expressing negativity about what flight training schools provide – they have to work towards the syllabus and contain costs – more of a reflection on the current system.
I’d include:
- Flying approaches with an autopilot (but would still include precision approach flown manually), since this is what you’d do most of the time
- Airways route finding (rather than using the outdated and irrelevant Jepp manual), including Y and Z plans
- “Informal” transition between VFR and IFR, especially for different European countries. I did some of this (being based at a smaller airport) and have done so with my IRR/IMCR but would not be clear on how (easily) this is done in other countries. This would include non-airways IFR, rather than filing a flight plan when in flight.
Some good points, but with some difficulties…
- Flying approaches with an autopilot
The prerequisite for that would be an ILS capable autopilot in a training aircraft. I have seen some working ones in twins (more non-working ones…), but never in a single. Our procedures trainer (set up as a Pa44 Seminole) has an autopilot and I usually let the students do a couple of approaches with it.
- Airways route finding, including Y and Z plans
This is covered in the ground training/theory already. As one of the bases of our FTO is a VFR airfield, every student gets some Y and Z flights in real life as well.
- This would include non-airways IFR …
Even if this will be allowed here in Germany sometime in the future, I will plainly refuse to do it and I don’t think it can be forced upon me as an instructor. Everybody has his own level of safety minima, and flying uncontrolled without being able to see and be seen is below my comfort level.
- Airways route finding, including Y and Z plans
This is covered in the ground training/theory already. As one of the bases of our FTO is a VFR airfield, every student gets some Y and Z flights in real life as well.
Interesting! But which tools do you use in class? Sure you don’t wade through thousands of pages of RAD restrictions and then teach them to just file without verifying that it will produce an ACK…
Possibly just dfs-ais.de?
Or do you never go beyond EDDS – EDNY (where it’s just a matter of throwing in a SID and then a STAR)?? Well, then it does indees have little practical relevance…
But which tools do you use in class?
In class? The good old DFS route chart found in the AIS, the only official document availble. This of course does not teach them how to validate their routes. For real flying, there is a workstation (=PC…) that runs Jeppesen Flight Star (or whatever it is called now). During one afternoon, the students get shown how to work out their routings with that and how to file them with DFS using different online portals. Most important is to tick the “IFPS REROUTING ACCEPTED” box that still works miracles for domestic flights here.
Or do you never go beyond EDDS – EDNY
We use several other training airfields in south/western Germany as well, if only because neither EDDS nor ED T Y have an NBD. Like ETHN (a lot), EDMA, EDDN, EDTL, EDSB, EDNY, EDTD, EDFM. Going further than that is quite useless, because flying straight and level for more than 30 minutes in a row teaches them nothing.
It’s certainly true that most FTO planes are wrecks on which a lot of stuff doesn’t work, and that alone ensures that the training industry will continue to resist any syllabus modernisation, but clearly there is a business opportunity for IR training for private (non ATP career) IFR pilots, on a plane which is not a complete wreck 
Otherwise, it isn’t hard to work out what is wrong with the present teaching. Just get hold of any private pilot who flies IFR for real.
And, while at it, gently retire those ATPL ground school instructors who look at your nice shiny TB20 in awe and say “gosh, have you got a KNS80 in there??” (that’s a genuine case, from a well known FTO at EGHH where I spent a few days).
because flying straight and level for more than 30 minutes in a row teaches them nothing.
That debate will run and run. It’s the same in PPL training. It’s a tradeoff between the cheapest possible PPL, and properly absorbing the stuff. Flying somewhere for 30 mins under real IFR, with the interaction with ATC and weather, is very instructive.
… but clearly there is a business opportunity for IR training for private (non ATP career) IFR pilots …
I’m afraid that this is not a business opportunity. Of the approx. 50 IFR students that our FTO trains per year, 49 are ATPL career pilots. And devising and approving a special syllabus for the one remaining private IFR pilot is not worth the effort. Even less buying or leasing an appropriate aeroplane for him. In such cases we usually train them on their own aircraft (the last one in whose training I was involved owns a very well equipped Bonanza) and it is up to the instructor to teach them outside the syllabus by putting some emphasis on the installed avionics. Most instructors nowadays are perfectly able to operate and explain glass cockpits and working autopilots, even some of the >75 year olds
Flying somewhere for 30 mins under real IFR, with the interaction with ATC and weather, is very instructive.
Yes, 30 minutes. But this is how long it already takes us to fly to the nearest training airfield. When we fly EDDS EDSB, we even have to talk to French controllers (or Swiss ones when flying to EDNY), so they get enough experience with that. But more than 30 minutes just enroute? VFR any time, but IFR I can see no benefit, other than maybe teaching them to be patient.
In class? The good old DFS route chart found in the AIS, the only official document availble. This of course does not teach them how to validate their routes. For real flying, there is a workstation (=PC…) that runs Jeppesen Flight Star (or whatever it is called now). During one afternoon, the students get shown how to work out their routings with that and how to file them with DFS using different online portals. Most important is to tick the “IFPS REROUTING ACCEPTED” box that still works miracles for domestic flights here.
Sounds very old school to me. (No criticism, no school seems to go much beyond what you said).
We use several other training airfields in south/western Germany as well, if only because neither EDDS nor ED T Y have an NBD. Like ETHN (a lot), EDMA, EDDN, EDTL, EDSB, EDNY, EDTD, EDFM. Going further than that is quite useless, because flying straight and level for more than 30 minutes in a row teaches them nothing.
I was not about the flying lessons, but about the type of flightplans whose route generation techniques you teach in ground school..
Sounds very old school to me. (No criticism, no school seems to go much beyond what you said).
But honestly, I wouldn’t know how to do it differently. It’s important to show the principle, and that doesn’t change. And the theory exam has to be done with chart, pencil and basic pocket calculator as well!
There are a dozen or so flight planning programs and apps on the market and I think that every pilot can pick the one he likes best for flying – but it can not be the flying school who teaches them him to use it.
I’m afraid that this is not a business opportunity. Of the approx. 50 IFR students that our FTO trains per year, 49 are ATPL career pilots. And devising and approving a special syllabus for the one remaining private IFR pilot is not worth the effort.
I would say that is because you don’t specialise in that market sector. Nearly all FTOs don’t, and some (IME) are downright hostile to a private pilot making an enquiry.
For private pilots, one needs to approach it differently. For a start, he/she normally has plenty of money (those that don’t aren’t going to be doing much flying afterwards, are they?) but is time-limited and needs a package tailored to his/her personal situation.
There are a dozen or so flight planning programs and apps on the market and I think that every pilot can pick the one he likes best for flying – but it can not be the flying school who teaches them him to use it.
True, but until this is embraced during the learning stage, “you” will be continuing to turn out IR holders who can’t fly anywhere.
What is important is teaching the basic principles. For example, you could get people to use the EuroGA autorouter and then they get the idea and can use that one, or one of the others.
It’s a bit like if you teach somebody to load up a GNS430, they can use anything else, with just minimal familiarisation. That’s until you get to stuff like the missed approach behaviour but they will have an idea of where this can bite them.
This is covered in the ground training/theory already.
In a completely impractical way, perhaps.
The good old DFS route chart found in the AIS, the only official document availble.
That sentence IMO proves that it isn’t taught in a practical manner. There’s far more needed than a “DFS route chart” to create a working route, manually, these days (for example the RAD documents).
Most important is to tick the “IFPS REROUTING ACCEPTED” box
That might work in Germany when filed using DFS, but everybody else who just passes flight plans to Eurocontrol will get a reject with about 95% probability.
This would include non-airways IFR …
bq. Even if this will be allowed here in Germany sometime in the future
Are you really talking about off airways here? Do you reject any vector given to you by ATC and blindly follow procedure? Or are you talking about “uncontrolled IFR” in airspace G?
