Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Merging VFR and IFR training into one?

The reason for me stirring the pot with my original post is that I don’t think the present PPL delivers a good package to a VFR-only pilot, and I don’t think the present PPL/IR delivers a good package to an IFR pilot.

What is your idea of good training packages for the VFR or IFR pilot?

ESSB, Stockholm Bromma

I just finished reading a book called The Killing Zone – Why Pilots Die, which is definitely worth a read. In the book the author discusses a combined VFR/IFR training programme which culminates with a combined flight test. His syllabus was approved by the FAA and some of the key points were:

Training was all scenario focused, trying to give the students more real word flying experience than simply performing set exercises
No minimum flight times for the course or containing scenarios/exercises, each was assessed for competency
Training performed in G1000 equipped aircraft

Before running the first course, the author and training provider reviewed their past training records to determine the number of ‘setbacks’ previous students had in training, by looking at how often lessons had to be repeated; the average was 12 setbacks between start of the PPL and completion of the IR. When they ran the new course the average was 3.

To try and determine if the change in the training method, or the change in the avionics (new course run on G1000 equipped aircraft) reduced the number of setbacks, a subsequent course was run using traditional training methods on the new aircraft. The setback average returned to 12…

I’m not a flight instructor, but a product of the current UK flight training industry. My PPL instructor was a good friend, and whilst the main focus of my PPL training was on the ‘set exercises’ I did have access to him afterwards to learn how to go places in the real world and another a PPL friend of exactly the same experience level to learn and progress with. For the IR I have been training on my own and find the teaching to me a lot more prescriptive and with less relevance to real world IFR.

I’m certain that a syllabus for training that teaches people how to actually use an aeroplane to get places would produce safer pilots and also increase GA activity, both of which seem to be a good thing. It is evident from reading these forums that we are mostly teaching each other once we have a license.

EGBP, United Kingdom

Thanks for that post WB – that FAA experiment was exactly what I had read about previously.

we are mostly teaching each other once we have a license.

Yes – which is why I believe in a good functional online community and which is why EuroGA was set up. Most “real useful operational” stuff is not learnt in the flying establishments, yet without it one cannot even fly from Shoreham to Le Touquet.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I’m certain that a syllabus for training that teaches people how to actually use an aeroplane to get places would produce safer pilots and also increase GA activity, both of which seem to be a good thing. It is evident from reading these forums that we are mostly teaching each other once we have a license.

You are perfectly correct however; there are many different reasons why pilots want to fly aeroplanes and what they ultimately want to do with them. Flying has been with us for a little over 100 years and during that time nobody has sat down and devised a syllabus or conducted any form of training analysis, consequently what we have has evolved from the past. Perhaps the coseset thing to a training analysis was the work undertaken By Smith-Barry who devised the British Military trainig model in 1917. In fact most of the Worlds Air Forces and European civil training is still based upon that method. It was never adopted in the USA.

The European PPL syllabus was taken straight from the RAF circa 1954 and has changed little since. The Services began by teaching pilots how to fly aeroplanes to wings standard on basic and advanced courses. The basic equated to PPL level and the advanced to CPL level with or without an IR, and then conducted role training in Operational Conversion Units (OCUs) where the pilot learned how to do whatever the job was going to be. When a pilot changed roles or had a break from flying, the OCU course was retaken in its entirity. The cost of training rapidly increased towards the operational end.

If you calculate what it would cost to train a PPL holder to fly around the World, which is what they are qualified to do, then the training time would increase probably by a factor of 4 and be outside most people’s reach and relevant to less than 1% of those trained. A PPL is trained to fly an aeroiplane in a manner where they can safely carry passengers under VFR nothing more.

There are some prety major changes due with regard to IFR flying in the next 6 years (Future Airspace Strategy) wher the training for an IR will have to change radically; nobody in the training industry or legislative World has even begun to consider the change from needle based aids to space based aids, magenta lines and aircraft flight management systems choosing the routing whilst ATC cease to control and simply monitor. Its bigger than the change from aural approaches to ILS in the 50s.

By and large, no training teaches pilots to fly IFR, they are taught to fly by sole reference to instrumments, a piloting skill. Much of that skill is an extension of what they should have been taught when they are flying VFR. Like a jugler they learn to scan small groups of instruments when VFR and that rapidly expands under IFR. You could not teach a jugler to begin with 7 balls, they will start with 2 and gradually increase the number. It is no different when conducting instrument training.

When a new IR emergencs to match the operational requirements of FAS which is commercially driven, the two skills will have to merge however they will still have to be developed progressively. This inevitable change will present a major problem to those GA aircraft still fitted with conventional instruments; perhaps they will be banned from flying IFR altogether!

Pretty much sums it up that most current training is based on what existed 60 years ago, therefore a lot of time, energy and money is going to training people to do things they will almost never do, or are even disuaded from doing. My memory of the PPL was a lot of time spent finding random villages or features on navigation exercises, which of course is because that is what the skills test entails. Once you have the license, the CAA/NATS are flogging you a GPS to cut down on infringements… Hmmmm…. Given that even the average rental aircraft has a VOR receiver of some sort on board, maybe it is now time to focus on how to safely and effectively use GPS as a primary navigation source and radio alternatives as backup?

I’m sure to be shot down by the ‘but what happens if all the electrics fail’ brigade now….

EGBP, United Kingdom

Flying has been with us for a little over 100 years and during that time nobody has sat down and devised a syllabus or conducted any form of training analysis, consequently what we have has evolved from the past. Perhaps the closest thing to a training analysis was the work undertaken By Smith-Barry who devised the British Military training model in 1917. In fact most of the Worlds Air Forces and European civil training is still based upon that method. It was never adopted in the USA.

In the US, the Civilian Pilot Training Program (CPTP) operated on a fixed syllabus, and trained about 435,000 pilots with government funding. It apparently produced very good pilots in that era, at minimum cost to the Government. For training of private pilots paying with their own money, I’m not in favor of any kind of fixed training syllabus, only a few basic requirements plus checkride performance exceeding the practical and written test standards. Then If a private pilot wants to do more hood work, or get an instrument rating he can do it assuming he is not over constrained by government enforced rigidity of pilot training requirements.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 15 Jan 18:32

To a – small – degree this type of training is already done in the US (where I learned to fly). There are no set ‘exercises’ and you do a fair bit of instrument flying, e.g. night x-country (technically VFR, but in reality you are on instruments), recovery from unusual attitudes under the hood, VOR/ NDB navigation, etc. And yes, all that was certainly covered in the checkride. When I did my training, GPS existed, but wasn’t used in training a/c, so that wasn’t covered, I know it is now.

17 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top