A ppendix A A-1 AP PENDIX A. REQUIRED INSTRUCTIONAL CORE TOPICS FOR
FAA-APPROVED TCO CURRICULA
1. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may periodically revise subject matter listed herein to reflect the changing emphasis determined by the FAA for the renewal of flight instructor certificates under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 61, § 61.197(a)(2)(iii). Flight instructor refresher course (FIRC) providers should check the FIRC informational website at least once every 90 days for any updates or changes in FIRC policy, guidelines, or resources. The website is located at https://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/firc.
2. The subject areas described below are those that approved FIRC providers are required to present during any FAA-a pproved FIRC program presentation. The FAA does not require the FIRC provider to use verbatim titles for the required core topics; however, the FIRC provider will identify core topics in the training course outline (TCO) for FAA review (see paragraph
11.3). The provider may teach these subject areas individually or in combination when the subjects are such that teaching them together is appropriate. However, the provider should teach these subjects in logical succession and in cohesive units consistent with the instructor attendees’ need to know, their ability to understand the subjects, and their application to the instructional process. Further discussion of these topics is located at the FAA’s FIRC website identified above.
3. The instruction presented should be clearly identifiable as relating to the required subjects listed here. No fewer than 16 hours of instruction may be given in each FIRC program (including course material and additional time allowed for breaks, testing, etc.). The provider needs to incorporate all core topics listed below within those 16 hours. There are minimum time requirements for individual core and elective topics. This is because it is not likely that the presenter could cover any individual core topic comprehensively in less than 45 minutes or elective topic in less than 30 minutes. The provider should identify the expected time that a presenter will spend on a given topic in each of the TCO’s lesson plans. The provider should also identify each topic’s expected start and stop times in the TCO’s schedule page. The provider, at their discretion, may present additional subject matters germane to flight instruction as elective topics in meeting the total 16-hour requirement. The General Aviation and Commercial Division or pilot school principal operations inspector (POI), as appropriate, will review and approve these subjects on a case -by-cas e basis. Once the FAA grants initial TCO approval, the provider can submit additional subject matter topics via email to the FAA’s FIRC email address at 9 -AW A -AVS-A FS-F IRC@faa.gov (or pilot school POI). Approval will typically take place within a few days via return email.
4.
The FIRC provider should design each of its lessons in a manner that teaches its attendees how to teach their clients and students effectively. To meet this goal, the FIRC provider should convey the most pertinent and up -to-da te information possible. This places the responsibility on the FIRC provider to continually research and keep abreast of dynamic issues affecting the training needs of pilots. Conveying timely information through the FIRC program promotes flight instructor awareness of dynamic issues that General Aviation (GA) pilots need to know.
Appendix A A-2
REQUIRED CORE TOPICS A.1 Navigating in the 21st Century: Pilotage to Global Positioning System (GPS), Automation, and Technically Advanced Aircraft (TAA). GPS is quickly becoming the principal means of navigation for many pilots. Additionally, pilots and aircraft owners are taking advantage of modern avionics and flight automation equipment. Glass cockpits are available for virtually every new aircraft, as well as for many legacy and experimental aircraft. GPS, positioning on a moving map, weather depiction, terrain/traffic awareness, and modern autopilots have made a significant presence to the GA fleet. While this represents a significant improvement in GA and navigation, overdependence on automated systems also introduces a number of new potential hazards. Instructors should be aware of what the systems can and cannot do, and be well versed in the potential hazards that pilots may encounter due to the use of automation, such as excessive heads-down time, automation fixation, automation dependency, database currency and limits, etc. Pilots should learn their airplane’s limitation, systems limitations, and all manufacturer’s recommended procedures for its use before a pilot can fly the aircraft safely. This is especially important for TAA equipped with automated avionics and flight automation systems (e.g., flight management system (FMS) or coupled autopilots). Instructors should be able to quickly recognize systems automation-based risky behavior in their students and how to correct it. Instructors should also ensure that their students do not become overdependent on these systems to the exclusion of the more traditional methods of navigation, such as pilotage, dead reckoning, and very high frequency omni-directional range (VOR). Pilots using advanced automation must remain proficient in manual aircraft control to fly safely and not allow the use of the aircraft’s automation to degrade their primary skills. Advanced avionics and flight automation offer many levels of automation. Pilots need to understand that no one level of automation is appropriate for all flight situations. If an automation system failure occurs, in whole or in part, the pilot should possess the knowledge and skill to address the situation.
The FAA strongly recommends that pilots and flight instructors strive for proficiency in every aspect of the aircraft flown, which includes maintaining the pilot’s proficiency in manual aircraft control to mitigate the risk of loss of aircraft control. Pilots transitioning to TAA, or any unfamiliar aircraft, should receive specialized transition training from a qualified flight instructor with experience in the specific aircraft’s make, model, and equipment.
A.2 Security-Related Special Use Airspace (SUA): What’s Going on Where; How to Stay Clear. Several significant airspace changes have resulted from the events of 9/11.
Pilots in training depend on their instructors to guide them through the intricacies of the new and changing airspace regulations and to make them aware of the consequences of violating those airspaces. “Floating” temporary flight restrictions (TFR), particularly common during election years, are a significant challenge for pilots. Regulations regarding powerplants and stadiums are now in place. Instructors should have thorough knowledge about concepts entirely new to many GA pilots, such as the Washington, DC Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) and Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA), formally the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ). In addition, all pilots should be made fully aware of intercept procedures. The consequences of violating airspaces have become much more severe and often allow little flexibility with respect to enforcement.
Appendix A A-3 A.3 Transportation Security Administration (TSA): What Flight Instructors Need to Know to Stay Out of Trouble. The TSA now has a role in flight training.
Consequently, flight instructors should know which airman certificates the TSA is interested in. Instructors should also be aware of the requirements for citizenship documentation, recordkeeping, foreign student processing, flight instructor and flight school security awareness training, and more. FIRC providers should deliver up-to-date training designed to assist and ensure that the flight instructor attendee is fully aware of the latest TSA requirements. The FIRC represents an ideal venue to update the instructor on the TSA’s role and requirements in flight training. Not following the TSA guidelines properly can have serious consequences both for the student and for the flight instructor.
A.4 How to Teach Effectively and Build a Culture of Safety. Flight instructors are highly trained individuals. They hold vast amounts of knowledge gleaned during their own training and through their own experiences. Having a well-founded basis of knowledge is critical to being an effective instructor. However, if that highly trained and knowledgeable instructor is unable to convey their knowledge to a student, then he or she is ineffective as a flight instructor, regardless of knowledge and expertise. Teaching is an art. It requires not just an understanding of the topic, but an understanding of how people think and learn. It requires a certain amount of psychological understanding.
Virtually all instructors took coursework in the fundamentals of instruction, which offers a basic theoretical framework for the teaching and learning processes. As presented in the FIRC setting, this topic is expected to build upon and extend farther those skills necessary to effectively transfer knowledge to pilots. Incumbent upon this is building the instructor’s ability to instill a culture of safety in the minds of their students, and to spread and support the safety mindset throughout their aviation workplace on an everyday and ongoing basis.
A.5 Current Safety Trends in GA: How Flight Instructors Can Directly Contribute to Aviation Safety. The United States has the largest and most diverse GA community in the world, with more than 220,000 aircraft, including amateur-built aircraft, rotorcraft, balloons, and highly sophisticated turbojets. Over the last 20 years, GA accident rates have been continuing on a very slight downward trend, but there is still room for improvement. Even one fatality is too many. Although the fatal accident rate is declining, in fiscal year (FY) 2017, 347 people still died in 209 GA accidents. What are some of the causes of accidents? What types of accidents have declined? What types of accidents have increased and why? What are the things that flight instructors in particular can do to influence those trends? Seven of the 10 top causal factors in GA accidents involve low-altitude maneuvering and loss of control (LOC) of the aircraft. These include takeoffs and landings, stall/spin accidents, initial climb, and low-altitude maneuvering, among others. Instructors need to be aware of these safety trends and the causal factors behind these accidents, such as excessive angle of attack (AOA), aircraft Weight and Balance (W&B), bank-induced G loading, and many others, and how to avoid them.
Risk management (RM) and risk intervention strategies are aeronautical decision-making (ADM) processes designed to systematically identify hazards, assess the degree of risk, and determine the best course of action. These processes begin with the identification of hazards, followed by assessments of the risks, analysis of the controls, making control decisions, using the controls, and monitoring the results. It is the responsibility of the
Appendix A A-4 flight instructor to instill these skills in their students and other pilots with whom they fly.
However, to do so effectively, they should have the ability to clarify and present this knowledge in such a way that their students absorb the knowledge at a fundamental level so that when faced with a RM or risk intervention opportunity, they can respond quickly and accurately to mitigate or eliminate the risk. At the same time, instructors must also be skilled in instilling those RM mechanisms in such a way as to make them integral parts of their students’ safety mindsets, yet not instill unreasonable fear in those students who may still be developing their skill sets.
A.5.1 Contributing to GA Safety. The FAA’s goal is to reduce the GA fatal accident rate by 10 percent over a 10-year period (2009-2018) and beyond. Flight instructors play a leading role in promoting GA safety. You can find more information concerning GA safety in the FAA Fact Sheet – General Aviation Safety at https://www.faa.gov/news/fact _sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=21274.
A.5.2 FAA Industry Partnerships Identifying and Reducing Risks. Using data, the FAA and industry are working together to identify risk, pinpoint trends through Root Cause Analysis (RCA), and develop safety strategies. The FAA and the GA community carry out this work through their partnership with the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC) and other industry groups. Flight instructors can provide targeted training in response to findings and recommendations from these groups.
A.5.3 Helicopter Safety. The FAA partners with the International Helicopter Safety Team (IHST) and the U.S. Helicopter Safety Team (USHST) to promote safety and reduce civil helicopter accidents and fatalities worldwide.
A.5.4 Lesson Development. While the FAA requires FIRC providers to present a comprehensive overview of current GA safety trends as a core topic, they should also present the theme of the flight instructor’s role in enhancing safety in this lesson and weave this theme throughout the entire FIRC program.
• You can find more information concerning the GAJSC at http://www.gajsc.org/.
• You can find more information concerning the USHST at http://www.ushst.org/.
A.6 Pilot Deviations: Their Causes and How to Teach Pilots and Students to Avoid Them. Flight instructors should understand that GA pilots are responsible for more than 80 percent of all pilot deviations and that pilot deviations were responsible for 63 percent of runway incursions in FY 2012. The FAA defines a pilot deviation as an action of a pilot that results in the violation of a Federal aviation regulation. Pilot deviations are broadly classified as either airborne deviations or surface deviations.
Within each of these two broad classifications are a number of subclassifications.
The principal areas of concern in the airborne classification include altitude deviations, course deviations, and airspace incursions. The principal area of concern within the surface deviation classification involves runway incursions, but surface deviations also include vehicle/pedestrian violations. While the outcomes of most pilot deviations are benign, any deviation has the potential to be catastrophic. Because of this potential for catastrophic outcome, pilot deviations are a major concern in both the aviation industry
A ppendix A A-5 a nd within the FAA. Since all pilot deviations involve pilots, and virtually all GA pilots receive training from flight instructors at some point, the flight instructor plays a critical role toward reducing the pilot deviation incident rate. This necessitates an intimate understanding on the part of the instructors of the causes of these incidents, and the development of tactics to recognize and avoid those situations that may have a potential to result in a pilot deviation. For example, flight instructors should understand that not meeting the FAA Aviation English Language Standard (AELS) directly affects a pilot’s ability to avoid runway incursions and other potential pilot deviations. FAA AELS ensures efficient communications for receiving and understanding a clearance issued by air traffic control (ATC). Thus, a flight instructor should consider the pilot’s ability to meet FAA AELS during any flight evaluation or training event that he or she conducts.
(The core topic subject area addressed in paragraph A.9 below provides an expanded discussion on the FAA AELS.) The FIRC represents an ideal venue to update the instructor on pilot deviations, and to provide the attendee with the tools he or she needs to convey mitigation tactics to their students. While the FAA requires FIRC providers to present pilot deviations as a core topic, they should also weave the theme of the flight instructor’s role in reducing pilot deviations throughout the entire FIRC program.
A.6.1 Lesson Development. FIRC providers should develop this lesson to promote the attendees’ understanding of the common causes of pilot deviations and present strategies to avoid pilot deviations. This lesson should also include the common causal factors and avoidance procedures for specific pilot deviations such as runway incursions.
For example, detailed investigations of runway incursions over the past decade have identified three major areas (pilot errors) contributing to runway incursions. The first major area leading to runway incursions is the failure of a pilot to comply with ATC instructions; the second major area is a pilot’s lack of airport familiarity; and the third major area is a pilot’s failure to adhere to standard operating procedures and industry best practices. FIRC providers should also teach attendees the common challenges to pilots that lead to runway incursions. Lack of pilot proficiency, inadequate preflight planning, poor taxi procedures, distractions in the cockpit, loss of situational awareness (SA), and the improper use of aircraft lights are all challenges that, if not properly managed, can lead to a pilot deviation. Adverse weather, technology limitation, and complex airport designs are additional challenges that contribute to pilot deviations such as runway incursions. Training and procedures developed in compliance with FAA policies and industry best practices reduce the likelihood of pilot deviations such as runway incursions.
A.6.2 Teaching Strategies. FIRC providers should present strategies that attendees can use to teach runway incursions avoidance. For example, consider the following steps:
A.6.2.1 Proficiency. Training and continuing education lead to proficiency.
Proficiency is an essential step that pilots can take to avoid runway incursion.
Recurrent training, including a flight to a towered airport with an experienced flight instructor, is a good way to gain proficiency with airport operations and to develop the required skills to avoid runway incursions.
Appendix A A-6 A.6.2.2 Planning. Pilots should plan each flight before it takes place, even when flying to a familiar airport. Conducting preflight planning for every flight places a pilot in a better position to avoid incidents, accidents, and runway incursions.
A.6.2.3 Procedures. GA pilots should use proper procedures to reduce the risk of an incident or accident. To do so, GA pilots should develop and adhere to set cockpit procedures based on regulatory requirements and industry best practices. Progressive taxi instructions are an excellent mitigation strategy to ensure compliance with taxi clearances, which is especially useful at unfamiliar controlled airports and receiving progressive taxi instructions is an effective strategy to prevent runway incursions.
A.6.2.4 Sterile Cockpit. A sterile cockpit is another procedural step that pilots should take to reduce the risk of a runway incursion. A sterile cockpit means avoiding all conversations and actions not related to flight during critical phases of aircraft operations such as taxi, takeoff, and landings. Proper taxi procedures should always include a distraction-free cockpit because distractions lead to unintended consequences. Failure of pilots to follow ATC taxi instructions is the number one cause of runway incursions.
A.6.2.5 SA. SA is another step that begins with preflight planning. Some pilots only think of SA in terms of flight operations. So, they may maintain this mindset when the aircraft is on the ground. Reframing SA to cover all phases of flight is one more step in reducing pilot errors. To maintain SA, pilots should adopt a heads-up attitude when taxiing. This industry best practice is also a step to reduce the risk of an inadvertent runway incursion.
A.6.2.6 Aircraft Lights. Proper use of aircraft lights is an additional procedure that GA pilots often overlook. Aircraft lights allow others to have some idea of the pilot’s intentions. Proper use of the aircraft lights should be a defined element in every pilot’s set procedures.
A.7 How to Make the Best Use of the FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam) and the Pilot Proficiency Program (WINGS) in Your Program of Instruction. Flight instructors have at their disposal a vast and totally free resource of personnel and tools to help them better do their jobs both on the ground when conducting ground instruction, as well as in the air during actual flight training. That resource is the FAASTeam. The FAASTeam is coordinated through the FAA’s Safety Promotion Program Office (SPPO) and consists of a network of FAASTeam Program Managers (FPM) throughout the United States.
A.7.1 The FAASTeam has joined forces with individuals and the aviation industry to create a unified effort to reduce GA accidents and to foster and promote a positive safety culture in the GA community. These collaborative partners include:
Appe ndix A A-7
1. FA ASTeam Members: individuals who make a conscious effort to promote aviation safety and a positive safety culture;
2. FAASTeam Representatives (REP): aviation safety volunteers who wish to work closely with FPMs to actively promote safety; and
3. FAASTeam Industry Members (FIM): companies or associations of people that have a vested interest in aviation safety.
A.7.2 The FAASTeam’s website, https://www.faasafety.gov/, is the prime FAASTeam education and communication tool. Flight instructors are highly encouraged to register for an account, which is free. Registered users automatically receive email announcements of local and national safety seminars and webinars held throughout the country, and they can specify topics of interest for safety notices.
A.7.3 One of the many FAASTeam tools available to the instructor is the WINGS program.
The WINGS program is a structured, documented process. WINGS instructors are expected to provide evaluation and training necessary to ensure airmen are proficient in each element of each WINGS activity. WINGS instructors also seek to improve pilot performance to better than certification standards require. WINGS offers three levels of achievement: Basic, Advanced, and Master.
A.7.4 WINGS subjects are designed to target specific emphasis areas derived from accident data and are delivered through personal contact with flight instructors as well as through frequent live seminars and webinars given throughout the United States. Pilots attain and maintain WINGS phases on a rolling basis based on very simple and easy to understand requirements. Recordkeeping and verification are accomplished online; however, WINGS applicants do not need internet access to participate. As has been in the past, achievement of any level of the WINGS program will substitute for a flight review.
Flight instructors need to be aware of and conversant in how this program works and how it and the many other resources available to them through the FAASTeam can benefit both their clients and themselves.
A.7.5 Flight instructors can earn WINGS credit for completing a FIRC, and those who instruct in the WINGS program can renew their instructor certificates based on WINGS instructional flight activities. Flight instructors can also increase their client pool through delivery of WINGS post-cert ification proficiency training. For complete details, please refer to Advisory Circular (AC) 61-91, WINGS—Pilot Proficiency Program. Also, see sample lesson plans in Appendix B, References and Job Aids, Figure B-2, Sample Lesson Plan: Safety Trends in GA, and Figure B-3, Sample Lesson Plan: How to Make Use of the FAA Safety Team.
A.8 FAA Regulatory, Policy, and Publications Changes and Updates. Regulations, policies, and aviation safety-rel ated publications are continually changing, and part of the job of the flight instructor is to keep him or herself up to date to ensure that what they are teaching their students is current and accurate. This can be difficult for flight instructors, whether they are part-time w eekend instructors with jobs elsewhere, or very busy full-time in structors at flight schools with high activity levels. Nevertheless,
A ppendix A A-8 th is requirement remains critically important because effective recurrent flight instructor training directly relates to the quality of flight instruction provided to pilots and the furtherance of flight safety. The FIRC offers an ideal opportunity for the flight instructor to learn about what has been changing in the regulatory and policy areas that are so important in their conduct of their profession. Therefore, the FAA expects all FIRCs to provide training of pertinent developments that occurred since the attendee’s last certificate renewal. This, in turn, places an expectation on the FIRC provider to diligently research and keep abreast of the dynamic regulatory and policy environment within which the flight instructor and their students must operate. This, clearly, will necessitate ongoing and often substantial revisions in their course materials. In many cases, providers will have to revise material “on the fly” as policies and regulations change. The FAA expects FIRC providers to immediately update their presentation materials to reflect relevant changes in FAA regulations, FAA policies, and FAA safety-r elated publications
(e.g., FAA ACs and handbooks) to stay completely up to date at all times. The provider may make such changes to this topic content without prior approval at any time, provided such changes accurately reflect the current regulatory or policy state.
A.
9 How to Conduct an Effective Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC) and Flight Review. Flight instructors perform one of the most vital and influential roles in aviation. Along with training applicants to become first -time pilots, these aviation educators provide essential pilot evaluations and continuing training to ensure safe flight operations. Flight instructors influence the entire GA safety culture. They are not only responsible for pilots to meet aviation proficiency standards, but also bear responsibilities for the safety of every passenger who entrusts his or her life to a pilot’s knowledge, skill, and judgment. The FIRC provider’s role of providing continuing training to instructors is crucial. For example, the continuing training provided by FIRCs to flight instructors enables the flight instructor to conduct meaningful IPCs and flight reviews.
A.9.1 The IPC. The instrument flight instructor who administers the IPC described in § 61.57(d) must know how to conduct an IPC effectively. Providers should ensure that flight instructors receive the level of continuing training necessary to meet this goal.
Airman Certification Standards (ACS) or practical test standards (PTS), as applicable, for the instrument rating stipulates that the flight portion of an IPC must include certain aeronautical tasks (required maneuvers) specific to instrument flying. All flight instructors should know that the ACS or PTS guide (as applicable) contains this information. The maneuvers and procedures selected for the IPC must include those listed in the Rating Task Table in the current edition of the ACS or PTS guide, as applicable (e.g., FAA-S-8081 -4, Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards for Airplane, Helicopter, and Powered Lift). The instrument instructor conducting the IPC should also know that he or she has the discretion to require any other maneuver(s) necessary to determine that the pilot can safely operate under instrument flight rules (IFR) in a broad range of conditions appropriate to the aircraft flown and the ATC environment selected. In any case, the flight instructor should pay particular attention to those areas within the PTS identified as “Special Emphasis.” New ACS replacement guides do not label “Special Emphasis” areas, since all required tasks are emphasized.
The FAA also provides additional guidance in its March 2010 publication entitled Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC) Guidance. This guide offers additional FAA
A ppendix A A-9 g uidance, with special emphasis on conducting a thorough ground review and on administering IPCs in aircraft with advanced avionics. The goal is to help the instrument flight instructor determine that a pilot seeking an IPC endorsement has both the knowledge and skills to conduct safe flight operation in all aspects of instrument flying.
FIRC providers should remind attendees that the Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC) Guidance is also designed as a companion to the FAA publication entitled Conducting an Effective Flight Review, which offers optional guidance to flight instructors on administering the flight review required by § 61.56.
A.9.2 The Flight Review. A flight review is a training event in which proficiency is evaluated.
Thus, it is a proficiency-b ased exercise wherein the airman is required to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of his or her pilot certificate. It can be considered an industry-ma naged recurrent training program. All active pilots must receive some level of recurrent training on a regular basis in order to continue to exercise their pilot privileges.
At a minimum, pilots may meet that requirement through a flight review, which must be conducted at least every 24 calendar-m onths, as established in § 61.56. However, the FAA recommends that pilots complete a flight review as needed, not just once every 24 calendar-m onths. The flight instructor typically conducts flight reviews. Many pilots never encounter a flight instructor except for that every 24 calendar-m onth requirement.
Some flight instructors consider the flight review a chore that they would rather not do and are often unclear as to how to properly conduct one when they do. The instructor should understand that the authority to conduct a flight review, and thereby allow a pilot to continue to exercise his or her privileges as pilot, is a major responsibility and offers them an opportunity to assess and enhance a pilot’s aviation skills, and thus contribute directly to the safety of GA. Flight instructors should also understand that the flight review is not to be construed or conducted as a test, that there is no pass or fail, and that it is intended to be a learning experience. Flight reviews are not standalone programs of training that are the same for every pilot. Each flight review is unique to the skills and experience level of the pilot receiving the review. The instructor should be well versed in how to quickly assess a pilot’s skills and experience and to fine-t une the review “on the fly” to effectively confer new knowledge or to refine skills already possessed.
Most pilots know that a flight review requires a minimum of 1 hour of training on the ground and 1 hour of flight training as provided by § 61.56(a). This may create an unrealistic expectation of some pilots. Many pilots may not remember that § 61.56(a)(2) also requires that the review must include “[a] review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate.” Each pilot has individual needs that may easily require more time to resolve to satisfactorily complete a flight review. To prevent unrealistic expectations, the instructor should address the minimum time requirement and pilot proficiency requirement for a flight review before conducting it. The flight instructor who conducts a flight review normally uses more than an hour on the ground and an hour in the air to accomplish this in a useful way.
A.9.3 IPC and Flight Review Considerations. Flight instructors should possess a thorough understanding of the requirements and process for conducting an IPC or flight review when they agree to conduct one. They should also understand that FAA AELS directly affects safety of flight. Instructors should know that regulations require pilots to meet and
A ppendix A A-10 ma intain FAA AELS for all grades of pilot certificates issued under part 61. When a flight instructor conducts a flight evaluation and/or flight training event, the instructor should identify any pilot that does not demonstrate FAA AELS. In cases like this, the instructor should provide a logbook entry for training received, advise the pilot of the instructor’s finding, and notify his or her appropriate Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) for further action. AC 60 -28, FAA English Language Standard for an FAA Certificate Issued Under 14 CFR Parts 61, 63, 65, and 107, provides information and guidance regarding English language standards required by these 14 CFR parts.
The 2018 revision of AC 61-98, Currency Requirements and Guidance for the Flight Review and Instrument Proficiency Check, presented a new section pertaining to the FAA AELS. Flight instructors should also know how to instantly formulate an effective plan of action that will make the difference between a pointless exercise that only meets the regulatory requirements, and a truly effective IPC or flight review. The pilot under review/evaluation should come away knowing something they did not know before, possess a degree of skill they did not have before, and meet proficiency standards required to conduct safe flight. While the FAA requires providers to present the IPC and flight review as a core topic, they should emphasize the importance of the IPC, flight review, and instructor’s role in reducing GA accidents throughout the entire FIRC program.
A.10 Ethics and Professionalism in the Role of the Flight Instructor. A professional is a person who receives compensation for some unique knowledge or skill that he or she may possess. Ethics has been defined as what a person does when no one is watching.
The mark of a quality professional is that he or she maintains the highest level of ethics in everything they do, but most particularly in their professional field. This very much applies to the flight instructor who, by virtue of the fact that he or she receives compensation for his or her skill and knowledge, is a professional. Professionals who hold their field of endeavor in high esteem and who take pride in their accomplishments in their chosen fields tend to maintain high ethical standards without even thinking about it. It becomes an inherent quality when one takes pride in their work. Unfortunately, many in the flight instructor community do not easily recognize their own accomplishments and the critical role they play as instructors in the global world of aviation. This can be particularly true of those instructors who see themselves as “only” instructing to build the hours necessary to move on to the air carriers where they plan on flying “real” airplanes. The typically poor wages often found in the field of flight instruction does not help the perception of instructors’ professionalism. While not pervasive throughout the industry, flight instructors and others involved in aviation should guard against this mindset. Flight instructors represent the finest individuals in GA. They should be mindful of this fact and of the responsibility that it entails.
Flight instructors have the duty of fostering and ensuring safety through careful and thoughtful training. For example, signing a flight review endorsement in a pilot’s logbook, possibly for a friend, when not actually having conducted one or having conducted only a cursory check is unethical. However, the perception of the seriousness of such a poorly conceived event is largely dependent on those self-p erceived factors of ethics and professionalism. If the flight instructor has the attitude that “it doesn’t really matter because I am moving on to the airlines anyway,” then that instructor’s perception of this infraction will be very different than that of his or her colleagues. Most flight
A ppendix A A-11 i nstructors understand that flight instructing is an honorable profession, even if temporary, and they take pride in their ability and authority to conduct flight reviews.
Instructors should always be mindful of their responsibility and duty to maintain the highest ethical standards (to always do the “right thing”) and how those high standards directly contribute to safety in GA, regardless of their future personal goals. While providers are required to present ethics and professionalism as a core topic, they should also weave this theme throughout the entire FIRC program.
A .11 How to Teach Pilots to Avoid LOC. Instructors should know that the GAJSC cited aircraft LOC as the number one cause of GA fatalities from 2001 through 2016. The FAA Fact Sheet – General Aviation Safety reports that 219 fatal GA accidents and 413 GA fatalities occurred in the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) during 2016. In-f light LOC, mainly stalls, accounted for the largest number of GA fatal accidents. LOC refers to aircraft accidents that result from situations in which a pilot should have maintained or regained aircraft control, but did not. The overwhelming majority of GA accidents are avoidable. Flight instructors can make a significant impact on reducing GA accidents by providing targeted mentoring and training to pilots and students. FIRC presentations should include the following information in their LOC lesson:
A.11.1 Training Accidents. Training accidents have occurred because the flight instructor and trainee were not in agreement regarding manipulation of the flight controls.
A recommended three -s tep process of exchange includes a verbal handoff from the pilot flying, verbal acceptance by the pilot taking over, and a verbal and visual confirmation that the exchange has taken place by the pilot ceding control. The procedure to be used for exchange of flight controls should be briefed before flight. In addition, instructors need to maintain diligence while providing instruction. A flight instructor should always be ready and in a position to take over control of the aircraft when doubt exists as to the safe outcome of any flight operation or maneuver.
A.11.2 Traffic Pattern Operations. One area where pilots have experienced LOC accidents is while maneuvering in an airport traffic pattern. In response, the FAA is asking FIRC providers to focus on three traffic pattern issues. The first is the risk of a departure stall;
the second is the risk of LOC if attempting to return to the field after an engine failure on takeoff; and the third is the risk of LOC on the base to final turn. The pilot’s ability to avoid a stall is a factor in all three scenarios.
A.11.3 Departure. Flight instructors should provide training ensuring pilots of small, single-e ngine aircraft depart in coordinated flight at the best -r ate-of-c limb speed (VY) for normal takeoffs, and maintain this speed to the altitude necessary for a safe return to the airport in the event of an emergency. Instructors should emphasize that a departure at best-a ngle-of-c limb speed (VX) is used only for obstacle clearance and short-f ield takeoff procedures, and flight instructors should emphasize the risks and potential consequences of climbing out at speeds less or greater than what is required for a particular type of takeoff.
A ppendix A A-12 A.11.4 Return to Field/Engine Failure on Takeoff. Flight instructors should demonstrate and teach trainees when and how to make a safe 180-d egree turnback to the field after an engine failure. Instructors should also train pilots of single-e ngine airplanes not to make an emergency 180 -d egree turnback to the field after a failure unless altitude, best glide requirements, and pilot skill allow for a safe return. This emergency procedure training should occur at a safe altitude and should only be taught as a simulated engine-out
exercise. A critical part of conducting this training is for the flight instructor to be fully aware of the need for diligence, the need to perform this maneuver properly, and the need to avoid any potential for an accelerated stall in the turn. The flight instructor should demonstrate the proper use of pitch and bank control to reduce load factor and lower the stall speed during the turn. After completing this demonstration, the flight instructor should allow the trainee to practice this procedure under the flight instructor’s supervision. Flight instructors should also teach the typical altitude loss for the given make and model flown during a 180 -de gree turn, while also teaching the pilot how to make a safe, coordinated turn with a sufficient bank. These elements should give the pilot the ability to determine quickly whether a turnback will have a successful outcome.
During the before-t akeoff check, the expected loss of altitude in a turnback, plus a sufficient safety factor, should be briefed and related to the altitude at which this maneuver can be conducted safely. In addition, the effect of existing winds on the preferred direction and the viability of a turnback should be considered as part of the briefing.
A.11.5 LOC/Base to Landing. Specialized flight training that emphasizes establishing and maintaining a stabilized approach and landing also reduces the risk of LOC in an airport traffic pattern. A properly executed base -to-f inal turn considers crosswinds and enables pilots to begin final approach lined up with the intended runway’s extended centerline.
Instructors should instruct the pilot to reject an approach and initiate a go -a round when the pilot cannot maintain a stabilized approach.
A.11.6 Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). Another area where pilots have experienced LOC is while maneuvering in IMC. Vertigo or spatial disorientation has been a significant factor in many aircraft upset accidents. The common result when a non -i nstrument-r ated pilot inadvertently continues flight into IMC is spatial disorientation of the pilot and LOC of the aircraft. Pilots who are instrument rated, but not instrument proficient, are also susceptible. Recovery from such a situation can be nearly impossible. Additionally, instrument-r ated pilots maneuvering in IMC that fail to prioritize actions properly and utilize Crew Resource Management (CRM) may become inattentive or distracted, thus losing SA, which too often can lead to an LOC.
A.11.7 Pilot Proficiency. Studies have shown that LOC is most likely to occur when pilots lack proficiency. However, mitigation of this risk can be accomplished using personal currency programs and proficiency training. Proficiency is essential when an unforeseen, abnormal, or emergency situation presents itself. Conditions exceeding personal skill limitations can present themselves at any time and can occur unexpectedly. When this happens, the pilot needs to be able to avoid being startled, make appropriate decisions in a timely manner, and exercise skills at a proficiency level needed to meet the situation.
Personal currency programs serve to develop and maintain pilot proficiency by