If you could change a manuver in the PTS?

Whatusername

Whatusername

Well THIS is awkward!
Months ago there was a thread asking the community if they could change a FAR. Which got me thinking. If you could change, add, or heck even remove a maneuver in the PTS what would it be?

Personally I would like to see more stuff covering spins. I know that spin awareness used to be covered with the PPL and it's revisited again with the CFI ticket. However I know that actually integrating this change might be tricky. Especially as some primary flight training is done in aircraft where spins are a no no. Or if it's a aircraft that can be a tad tricky to get to spin.
 
Put spins in the private pts along with REAL unusual attitudes. None of this less than 60* bank 15* pitch up/down sillyness.
Anything you might see in the sportsman or maybe just primary aerobatics in the commercial pts. I wouldn't be against taking things out like lazy 8's and such in favor of these considerably more difficult maneuvers. If you can show me an immelman, I don't need to see a chandel.
On one hand you'd have less people become pilots... on the other hand I bet the quality of the product would be higher with less hours in the airplane.
Basically model it more after the military if possible. At least for commercial.
Anyone should be able to get a ppl. Make people really really know an airplane for a cpl.
 
I wouldn't so much want to "change" the PTS for commercial pilots, but rather change the emphasis on certain areas within it. The practical test all too often becomes more of a question of being able to do chandelles and such, but goes too lightly over the knowledge a person should have to operate commercially.
 
For the most part I dont see any big problem with the PTS as they stand. I think smart examiners do more scenario based testing within the framework of the PTS which tests real world decision making and PIC authority. For example, my CSEL examiner asked to set power for my short field takeoff, he set it low and said he wanted to simulate a high DA environment. I had to say I was going to abort before he gave me more power... things like that where you have to react to unexpected pressures while performing the required maneuvers. You can check off PTS standards like a robot, or you can apply them in a meaningful way. I'd like to see examiners who are thoughtful and test depth of understanding and application.

As for maneuvers, I dont have a problem with any of the commercial maneuvers. I think they all test what they are designed to test, and they dont need to have a real-life application. Lazy 8's are a good example. Not something you're likely to need to fly for a customer, but they do require planning and understanding of forces and smoothness of control. I dont really see a need to "weed out" commercial applicants. Everyone knows its a green ticket and it gives you very few privileges anyway, but it'd be nice to get more emphasis on thinking critically while flying naturally.

I would support adding spin endorsements to the private pilot requirements. Not require demonstration on the checkride, but just like the CFI currently, require one to experience them and demonstrate recovery with a CFI and receive endorsement that they were proficient at some point in time.
 
I don't really think the maneuvers are *broken*, so I wouldn't really fix them, but off the top of my head, rectangle course would be wrapped into "traffic pattern". If you can fly a proper traffic pattern on your checkride, you can fly a rectangle course.
(Many DEs already wrap the to together anyway to save time.)

I miss instruction.
 
Eh, I don't think the PTS is broken. The way some people utilize it certainly is, but they're probably going to just be box checkers no matter how you write the PTS. I wouldn't mind seeing lazy 8s and chandelles disappear from the commercial PTS. I think 8s on are invaluable in what they teach you about low-altitude maneuvering and especially use of the rudder while doing so.

I guess that's the beauty of the PTS, it is a simple document that outlines what must be known and tested for the applicant, and leaves the instructor or examiner free to use their experience, judgment, and creativity to construct realistic training and testing. It's as restrictive as it needs to be, yet as open as possible. There will probably always be those who will simply move down the list and check boxes, and rewriting the PTS to make it like one of the ridiculously cumbersome 141 syllabus lessons I dealt with at the Skool O' Flite would be unnecessary and probably still ineffective.
 
Let lazy 8's go back to being real lazy 8's. 30 degrees of bank? Really?! They aren't that valuable in their current form because we are forced to perform them watered down.
 
I'd get rid of pylon 8s an lazy 8s and instead focus on low level maneuvering - like turns around a point - which is what kills a lot of guys, and then make a basic course in aerobatics required.
 
ppragman said:
I'd get rid of pylon 8s an lazy 8s and instead focus on low level maneuvering - like turns around a point - which is what kills a lot of guys, and then make a basic course in aerobatics required.
Click to expand...
8s on pylons aren't low level maneuvering?
 
Loving the opinions so far. I have been thinking about this more and I have a few ideas. Some can't be implemented in the PTS although should be covered a bit more in training. Or at least be a topic that appears in multiple ratings.

1. I would like to see more than one emergency procedure in the PVT and Comm rating. I know for the comm ticket that steep spiral and power off 180s expanded emergency procedures. However I would like to see engine and electrical fires covered more. Or at least drilled into peoples heads some more.

2. Not quite a PTS item but it would nice to have comm and IFR applicants spend some time in a hypoxia chamber. If nothing else for them to see what their personal signs of hypoxia are. It also might be tricky to add as a requirement for a rating as not every airport would have access to such facility.

3. I still would love to see spins added into all levels of training.

4. I agree with Douglas that rectangular course needs to go. Well at least as a maneuver in the PTS. I still think it's a very nifty drill for getting new students to learn how to fly a traffic pattern without dealing with the chaos of a traffic patten.
 
z987k said:
If you can show me an immelman, I don't need to see a chandel.
On one hand you'd have less people become pilots... on the other hand I bet the quality of the product would be higher with less hours in the airplane.
Basically model it more after the military if possible. At least for commercial.
Anyone should be able to get a ppl. Make people really really know an airplane for a cpl.
Click to expand...

^^ THIS times a million.

Commercial PTS additions:

1.) Spins (at least 6 turns so they flatten out... none of this recovering while still in the incipient phase <1 turn crap).
2.) Aileron Rolls.
3.) Loops.
4.) Barrel Rolls.
5.) Immelmans.
6.) Split-S.

Loops and Immelmans are HUUUGE energy management problems in something tiny and underpowered like a 115 hp Citabria 7ECA, or a 100 hp Cessna 150K Aerobat. It would put the chandelle requirement to shame. :)
 
Roger Roger said:
8s on pylons aren't low level maneuvering?
Click to expand...
Not really, 500'AGL turns around a point while holding altitude - or trying to I guess - are what really kill people, pylon 8s are a fairly sloppy maneuver where you trade airspeed and altitude back and forth, cool thing to have taught to you, but more or less worthless. Best thing I learned was turns around a point super low (sub 500' in a t-craft on floats) by an old codger, that and accelerated stall series at altitude combined to prove to me that a stall can happen at any attitude any airspeed.
 
The PTS is a minimum standard, feel free to go above and beyond, you don't have to sign your students off if you don't feel they're ready

As far as spins go, more people were dying training for them than actually getting into them, so they were removed in favor of educating people about how not to get into them in the first place.





Sent from 1865 by telegraph....
 
ppragman said:
pylon 8s are a fairly sloppy maneuver where you trade airspeed and altitude back and forth, cool thing to have taught to you, but more or less worthless.
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more. Recall the terms "airmanship"... and "mastery of the aircraft" ? That's ultimately what the commercial maneuvers are testing for.
 
trafficinsight said:
The PTS is a minimum standard, feel free to go above and beyond, you don't have to sign your students off if you don't feel they're ready

As far as spins go, more people were dying training for them than actually getting into them, so they were removed in favor of educating people about how not to get into them in the first place.





Sent from 1865 by telegraph....
Click to expand...
If people were dying from spin training, then the people training the spins were not qualified to do so. If people were dying from spinning an airplane that's approved to do it, well then clearly they needed more training from a competent CFI in things like spins, loops, rolls, etc etc. In fact if anything I think it proves my point.
 
ppragman said:
Not really, 500'AGL turns around a point while holding altitude - or trying to I guess - are what really kill people, pylon 8s are a fairly sloppy maneuver where you trade airspeed and altitude back and forth, cool thing to have taught to you, but more or less worthless. Best thing I learned was turns around a point super low (sub 500' in a t-craft on floats) by an old codger, that and accelerated stall series at altitude combined to prove to me that a stall can happen at any attitude any airspeed.
Click to expand...
I always teach accelerated stalls. Most people don't really get that a stall can occur at any airspeed/attitude combination until they've seen it for themselves.
 
z987k said:
If people were dying from spin training, then the people training the spins were not qualified to do so. If people were dying from spinning an airplane that's approved to do it, well then clearly they needed more training from a competent CFI in things like spins, loops, rolls, etc etc. In fact if anything I think it proves my point.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a better way to put it would be "more people were being killed by intentional spins than accidental ones". At some point, even the most avid enthusiasts of spin training had to admit that, just maybe some re-thinking was in order.
 
As a general rule, pilots tend to think very highly of themselves. Those with excellent spin skills think that everyone should spin like they do before they should get their license. Those that learned in tail-draggers generally think that everyone should learn in tail-draggers. Same with glass cockpits vs steam, open cockpit vs enclosed cockpit, ATP vs FBO, learning at control tower airports vs unctrontrolled airport, etc etc...

Remember that there is nothing thats preventing you to teach your student more than the minimum, but why should someone be forced to do spin training (or loops and rolls for that matter) when they dont even have access to a spin-able airplane for example?

I did all my training in the Rock Mountains, I think every pilot needs a mountain flying course and endorsement for private pilots. More people die from mountain flying accidents out here than spin accidents....
 
z987k said:
If people were dying from spin training, then the people training the spins were not qualified to do so. If people were dying from spinning an airplane that's approved to do it, well then clearly they needed more training from a competent CFI in things like spins, loops, rolls, etc etc. In fact if anything I think it proves my point.
Click to expand...

I wasn't there so I can't comment on the flying ability of the hundreds or maybe even thousands of CFI's that were killed doing spin training. And anyway it doesn't matter, more people were dying in intentional spins than unintentional ones, so spin training was dropped from the PPL. It would be interesting to know if more people are dying in unintentional spins now than then. I wouldn't know how to find that out though.
 
trafficinsight said:
It would be interesting to know if more people are dying in unintentional spins now than then. I wouldn't know how to find that out though.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the NTSB have some data on this? I would also think that AOPA might have some info on this as well but that might be a bit of a stretch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top