Flight training is filled with disagreements. Which airplane is best? Should we use trim in a steep turn? Do you initiate a descent during a power-off stall demonstration? Many of these persistent arguments are noise—nothing more than two valid methods to achieve the same goal. But some do matter. Some have safety or monetary consequences that linger, which is likely the reason they have remained arguments for so long. Here, in no particular order, are the five biggest flight training-related arguments as we see them. We couldn’t resist throwing in a few of the biggest arguments that don’t matter. Some may surprise you.
1.Pitch versus power
This is the Democrat versus Republican of flight training arguments. Does pitch control airspeed and power control altitude—or is the inverse true, and power controls airspeed and pitch controls altitude? Proponents of the former believe that on final approach, for example, one should maintain the approach speed by pulling back to slow down and pushing forward to speed up, and pulling power back to descend and adding power to climb. Those in the latter camp think this is heresy, and pilots should use the controls as they were intended—power for airspeed and elevator, or pitch, for altitude.
Like many of flight training’s biggest arguments, this one will never be solved, partially because there are merits to both methods. “Pitch for airspeed, power for altitude” is easy to explain to a student pilot, and a change in any control gets a quick response. But disciples of the other method claim it can lead to poor airmanship, such as wild pitch changes close to the runway to chase an airspeed number in gusty winds.
One of the biggest implications of this argument is the fact that each instructor has an opinion on this point, and will require the student to fly by his or her rules. A change in instructors, whether during primary instruction or after, can lead to some confusion.
2. To spin or not to spin
One would think that an FAA-mandated training maneuver that was struck from the requirements in 1949 would lay to rest any lingering arguments. But the debate over whether spin training should be a requirement for a private pilot certificate is hotter than ever, in part because of recent high-profile accidents that can be traced to basic airmanship. The argument against spin training is simple—it was deleted as a requirement because it was believed that more people were dying in training than were being saved in subsequent flying. Many also believe spin training has the potential to scare off otherwise eager students. Those in favor of it have an equally simple argument: It’s a great learning opportunity that can save lives.
The implications of this argument are serious. No doubt there are instructors teaching students today who believe spins are necessary, and they teach them without their own solid knowledge or proper safety precautions. Conversely, good spin instruction is probably in the top three of the most important and effective types of specialty flight instruction. But a maneuver that causes people to drop out because of fear when it’s not a necessary maneuver probably doesn’t serve the community well, either. This argument could be solved with some good data on the risks associated with performing spins during primary training. Unfortunately, that data is not likely to appear.
3. Conventional or glass
The debate over whether it’s best to train in a conventionally equipped airplane or one with electronic flight displays—or glass cockpits—is turning into the next pitch-versus-power debate. It’s a debate that seems to go largely along generational lines. Those who trained in an airplane with a six pack of steam gauges believe it produces a superior pilot who relies on hard-fought scanning and interpreting skills, while the newer (although not necessarily younger) generation sees value in the incredible amount of information presented on a glass display.
This argument is fraught with distractions about market forces, claims of laziness, and more. Boil it all down and the basic question is this: Would the same student have a better experience on one or the other? That remains unanswered, although certain aspects to the question seem valid. It appears to be easier to go from six-pack to glass rather than the other way around. Glass has been shown to have some safety benefit, and there’s no question that newer airplanes with more modern instrumentation attract a new student pilot base. Of course, those new airplanes also cost more, which can drive away others. Ultimately it appears to be a personal choice between the student and instructor.
4. Accelerated training versus standard
Many flight students are accustomed to the routine of scheduling flight lessons while keeping fingers crossed that the weather, the aircraft, and even their personal lives cooperate. But there is another way: accelerated training. It’s more commonly used to knock out advanced certificates and ratings, but can work for the sport and private certificates as well. The principle goes like this: Arrive with a knowledge test and some ground study under your belt; a week, or 10 days, or two weeks later you leave with your new certificate. You’ll fly many hours per day and absorb knowledge in a fashion that most refer to as “drinking from a fire hose.”
Accelerated training can save you thousands in training dollars—provided you are able to retain what you learned. And that is a big disclaimer. It can be a good solution for someone who’s been kept from the finish line by schedules, weather, or airplanes out of service. On the other hand, training at your home airport means you’ll work with a flight instructor whom you’ll come to know and trust; you’ll fly airplanes that you’ll continue to rent after the checkride; and everything—well, almost everything—is done on your schedule.
5. Scenario-based training or traditional methods
You may not have heard about this, but the FAA is undergoing a fundamental shift in the way it recommends pilots be trained. Instead of a standard building-block approach that takes a bunch of seemingly unconnected tasks (to the student, at least) that bind together towards the end, the FAA now recommends a training curriculum at least partially based on scenarios.
It’s called FITS, or FAA-Industry Training Standard, and the reason you may not have heard of it is because many instructors don’t buy in to the philosophy. The program is a way for the FAA to accept a training curriculum that focuses on scenario-based learning, and risk management. Some instructors love the focus of a more practical and direct training program, while those not in favor of FITS lament the loss of stick-and-rudder skills.
It’s too early to know which side is correct. The implications to this argument are big. If the FITS crowd is correct, pilots will become safer because they know their airplanes, themselves, and the environment in a way that allows them to reduce risk. But if they’re wrong, as the anti-FITS crowd contends, safety will go down as we experience more accidents related to poor flying skills.
Related Articles
