How am I doing

Learning to fly is somewhat similar to being born. You enter what's essentially an alien world where you know nothing. In both situations you're totally dependent on others and, just as a baby will grow up developing the speaking patterns and accent of his parents, the fledgling pilot will absorb the piloting traits of his instructor.

This process is difficult to assess while the student develops as a pilot. The big items, like learning to taxi and the solo, are obvious. But since a student lacks the experience to assess how his training is progressing, he must rely on the instructor's judgment.

In theory, all flight training adheres to a set of standards, so students should develop approximately the same skill set. The FAA has made a project out of trying to eliminate the hit-or-miss nature of flight instruction by issuing all manner of standardized performance requirements, handbooks, and guides; it also provides for standardized practical tests. The assumption is that if the standards are spelled out, everyone will conform--and, therefore, all instructors and students will fall within the central confines of a bell-shaped curve.

There is a flaw in this logic: First, there is no "standard" human being. Each brings unique mental and emotional perspectives to the cockpit that require the instructor to modify his techniques to match that particular student. There can be no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach to flight instruction.

This is further complicated by the fact that instructors are people too, so they vary wildly in their personalities and capabilities. Ergo, there can be no such thing as a standard instructor, any more than there can be a "standard" student. The goal of standardization is to iron out an instructor's personal kinks by having him follow a well-organized lesson plan and set of performance standards for both him and his students. What's more likely is that instructors will interpret instructional standards within the framework of their personal experiences and develop their own style of teaching.

Instructional technique that varies from person to person is not a bad thing. It should, however, cause a student to ask, "I wonder if he's teaching it right, and if I'm learning it right?"

Since a student can't accurately judge his progress, an hour with a different instructor while going through a mini-checkride could answer a multitude of questions, boost the student's confidence, and--if necessary--help to reorient his learning. In fact, flight schools operating under Part 141 of the Federal Aviation Regulations build such "mini checkrides" into their curriculum. They're called stage checks, and they occur at specified points in the curriculum, such as before solo, before the solo cross-country, and before the practical test itself. However, there's no reason why you can't seek a second opinion outside of your flight school's schedule if you suspect that your instruction isn't progressing as it should.

How am I doing?

To begin with, you'll give your check flight instructor a list to follow during the ride (see "Check It Out," p. 25). It may parallel the Practical Test Standards to a certain extent, but it is actually designed to answer any questions that you have about your training--whether you know what you're supposed to know and can do what you should be able to do for the amount of flight time that you've logged.

Some of the items on your checklist are black and white, while others are more intangible and subject to an instructor's personal definition of piloting techniques. For instance, some instructors think it's perfectly OK to go roaring down the runway and, at a given airspeed value, force the airplane into the air. Others will operate with a little more finesse and expect to see their students gracefully raise the nose early, roll on the mains for a few seconds, and let the airplane make the takeoff. While neither of these approaches is totally wrong, you'll find that many instructors will defend their preferred technique to the death. So, be prepared for comments that may or may not match the basic concepts you were taught. In those cases, you have to use your common sense to sort out the differences.

At what point in your training do you need to go for a second opinion? That will depend on your specific situation, but in general, 25 hours would be a good time to check on your progress. If, however, you feel as if something is going wrong--in speaking with other students you realize they are all using terms like gyroscopic precession, torque, and P-factor as if they know exactly what they mean, but you don't have a clue--then it's time to find out if you're being shorted in the basic piloting category. Or maybe you've been taking lessons twice a week and you're at 20 hours, but the instructor says you're not even close to being ready to solo. It might be time to consider a second opinion to make sure you aren't being used as a piggy bank to pay for someone's new Harley.

When a flight school has a system of progressive flight checks, they might be linked to training milestones (presolo, before solo cross-country flights, and before the practical test) or based on 15- or 20-hour cycles. Either approach works well, although it has to be pointed out that it adds three or four flight hours to the total for a private pilot certificate. Still, assuming the prog checks actual do that they are designed to do--ascertain that the student is progressing at the proper rate and meeting the appropriate performance standards--it is time well spent and a great investment in your flying future.

If you're already learning under this kind of a system you can do no better. If you're not, you can apply part of that concept to your flight training through self-designed progressive checks and you'll get one, and probably two, prog checks during your training period.

After the ride, what next?

Now comes the real question: What do you do if your mini-checkride confirms your suspicion that some skills are questionable or your progress lagging? This is where some hard decisions have to be made. There are really only two courses of action--one of which is practical but disruptive, while the other is impractical and potentially prolongs the problem. Not very good choices.

The practical-but-disruptive approach says that you believe so strongly in the second opinion that you go looking for another flight instructor. This means that there will be a disruption in your training while you find a new one. Another real problem with this approach is that there is no guarantee you're going to find someone better, because you don't know a student/instructor mismatch exists until you have flown with the new instructor. By then you may have burned a bridge you wish you hadn't.

This kind of a transition can be smoothed out by not scheduling flights with instructor No. 1 for a week or two, but during that time, fly with No. 2 several times to feel out the relationship. Then, if it's working and is an improvement, you officially break it off with No. 1. And, no, this isn't cheating. You aren't married to the person, and your future as an aviator is on the line. All is fair in love and flight instruction.

The second course of action is that you try to salvage your first instructor. The success of this approach is highly dependent on your skill as a diplomat and the overall personality of the flight instructor. Remember that if your flight school has a formal progress check or stage check program, your instructor will have received feedback on your performance from the check instructor--and he or she will be taking the necessary steps to address any deficiencies identified in your current skills or training. A professional instructor will do the same regardless of who calls attention to any shortcomings.

One way to approach it is to just tell the instructor what you're thinking. By providing a few concrete examples, which will be based on the input from your mini-checkride, you can immediately see his reaction--and you'll have an indication of how he will address your training needs. Even though you're a student, you are also a customer, and the instructor should recognize this. If the instructor tries to tell you things you know not to be fact ("Oh, very few people solo in less than 20 hours" or "Only the old-fashioned instructors harp on using the rudders"), then that relationship should be over. Move on and don't look back.

If, on the other hand, he is genuinely concerned and pledges to work with you, and you're still confident in the instructor, then you should be fine staying where you are.

Your progress as a student depends on variables ranging from your ability to learn, the frequency of your lessons, the local weather, and the effectiveness of your instructor. Still, the bell-shaped curve exists because the majority of students fit somewhere around the middle, and the odds say that you shouldn't be too far from the center. If you don't think you're where you ought to be, check it out. A second opinion never hurts.

Budd Davisson is an aviation writer/photographer and magazine editor who has written approximately 2,200 articles and has flown more than 300 different types of aircraft. A CFI since 1967, he teaches about 30 hours a month in his Pitts S-2A Special. Visit his Web site.