WildSmurf

I’m currently a part-time flight instructor, but I do spend time looking to see how other universities train their students. I have come a cross the combined private and instrument training course. I got my hand on one of the Training Course Outlines (TCO) and am surprised to see that the students are made to shot LOC,ILS, VOR and the list continues before the student solos. The student then does his dual cross countries then is sent to a stage check to solo. After the solo the student then has to hold on fixes. I’m honesty just curious to see what anyone has to say about this, seems like the student is going to take a long time to get through. In my experience, some students find out they don’t want to be pilots after they solo or receive their private ticket. This along with the fact that many students stop flying due to money. There is a lot to learn in the FARS about VFR and IFR, seems like to much information to push on someone new. Sorry for the long post, but I am just interested to see if anyone has something to say.
WILD SMURF

rickair7777

Obviously that program is aimed at dedicated career-oriented pilots. If the student is smart and motivated there might be some benefit to such a program in that you start thinking instruments early on.

But for most folks it just makes more sense to me to do VFR flying first, get a good handle on that, then move on to IFR. I don't think you are going to see the industry shift over to this format...

NoyGonnaDoIt

You are looking at one of the programs that is part of the partnership between the FAA and a number of flight schools to examine other models of training with respect to training in technically-advanced aircraft. The theory is that training in a an "Technically Advanced Aircraft" (TAA) aircraft equipt with an Avidyne or G1000 glass panel and multi-axis autopilot is different than in a "steam gauge" 152.

Two of the more interesting components of the program are scenario-based training in which, instead of specific maneuvers, the focus is on using those maneuvers in real situations.

The other is what you came across - the combination of visual an instrument training. Part of the theory as I understand it, is that once you pass the real learning curve for understanding and fully using say a G1000 with autopilot for VFR tasks, it's a very small step to using them for IFR tasks.

The program has been around for a while and some of the material makes for interesting reading. You can check it out at
FAA-Industry Training Standards (FITS)

rickair7777

Actually that could make more sense in glass airplane.

rcfd13

I think a program like this might do more harm than good. I've had private pilot students who have spent a lot of time playing flight simulator, and it takes forever for me to get them to get their head out of the cockpit and start thinking VFR. I think introducing instrument flight too early in training can hurt their VFR skill development. A lot of the "time crunch" type programs that rush people through ratings don't seem like a good idea to me because they hurt skill development.

WildSmurf

I do agree that this program would make more sense if it is a G1000. I am still concerned how these students will handle the information. I have flown the G1000 and its great for someone that knows what they are doing. I remember when I was getting my private ticket with the six pack, nav, and the good old chart on my lap, and it was still a lot of information to process. Now add the intensity of doing an approach, you still haven’t soloed, navigation is still tough and you have only a few hours. I do feel that the scenarios can help the student with real world issues, but I’m still not sold on the combined TCO. I hope this program works out, but I wouldn’t want to be the first guinea pig, I’m sorry , student to try this. This stated, I will do more research on the scenario aspect which sounds like it would be a good addition. Thanks for the replies.


WildSmurf

NoyGonnaDoIt

The very first guinea pigs are probably done with the program. I recall being at a seminar discussing the program may 4-5 years ago. I never followed up to see what kind of preliminary results they've gotten at the 2-3-4(?) schools doing the program but there's probably something on the FITS website.

shdw

Absolutely agree. It seems like they are teaching calculus while trying to teach basic algebra at the same time. It is bad enough that most post private students spend half their time looking inside, I can't imagine this making it better.

I can't tell you the number of BFR/post private guys I see in the pattern with their head inside more then out. When it is outside they are staring at the runway like the darn thing is going to pack up and move. Few instructors tell them the right visual areas to look at and takes the time to ensure they learn it.

It is unfortunate because pure stick and rudder, visual flight, and seat of your pants is so much easier to grasp then any instrument flight. If it is taught right.



Off topic a bit, but IMO visual flight is lost because most instructors can't do it either. I couldn't when I graduated college, but I sure could fly those snazzy instruments.

When is the last time anyone here has done a steep turn and not looked at any instrument, performing it flawlessly with visual cues? How bout a chandelle? Lazy 8? Stalls? Slow flight? Etc.

Ewfflyer

If I ever had a private pilot student in one of these, i think i'd just put a huge piece of paper over the center. Coever everything except for Altitude, airspeed, and the engine gauges

shdw

I find it isn't so much what is covered, it's that they have no idea what to look at outside.

This kind of sparked a question I have for everyone. When you teach a student to fly level flight, with visual cues, what do you tell them? Do you just tell them something to look at? Do you explain feel, kinesthetic? Thanks fellas/gals.