Proficient Pilot: Broken Wings

Those who do not fly for a living are not required to take recurrent training. Consequently, many allow their basic skills and knowledge to erode without realizing it, an especially acute problem for those who fly infrequently.

Recognizing that all pilots need some form of ongoing training, the FAA introduced the flight review. The agency also introduced the Pilot Proficiency Program, an effort to provide pilots with incentives to participate in a different form of recurrent training. Those who complete the voluntary training are awarded a certificate and small pair of lapel wings, which is why the PPP is better known as the Wings program.

A pilot completes the first and subsequent levels of the program by voluntarily taking three instructional flights and attending three FAA-sanctioned seminars, such as many of those offered by the AOPA Air Safety Institute, during a one-year period. There are three levels of achievement: Basic, Advanced, and Master. A pilot satisfying the requirements for a given level for the first time is said to have completed Phase I. He may repeat the same requirements to complete Phase II, and so forth.

The FAA claims the Wings program has a significant impact on safety. During a sample year, for example, one out of 247 pilots had an accident, and one out of 1,230 had a fatal accident. But of those who participated in the Wings Program, only one out of 450 had an accident and only one out of 5,000 had a fatal accident. An FAA inspector says, “It is difficult to understand how such minimal requirements can result in such a marked improvement in pilot safety, but they do.”

I believe that the Wings program is given too much credit, because these safety statistics likely have little to do with the program. The type of pilots seen at the seminars seem to be the most conscientious and probably don’t need the training as much as those who never show up. In other words, Wings participants probably would have a better safety record even if they didn’t participate.

This makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the Wings program, but it is not difficult to measure its lack of popularity. Less than 10 percent of all certificated pilots have completed the Basic Level.

At a recent seminar I conducted, I showed a pair of the lapel wings to 44 pilots. Only five recognized what they were. Of 17 flight instructors, only three had ever been asked to instruct someone participating in the program.

The program flounders because the FAA does not adequately promote it. Also, its website is clunky, complex, verbose, and not user-friendly, thus discouraging its use. A campaign in the private sector achieving so little success would be abandoned. And the program is boring; every phase has the same requirements. Finally, the bland lapel pins—they look like Cracker Jack prizes—and the print-them-yourself certificates fail to provide incentive. There is nothing prideful about something that innocuously says that a pilot has taken flight instruction and attended seminars.

The FAA could learn from the Soaring Society of America. SSA administers an international badge program for sailplane pilots that requires them to demonstrate genuine accomplishment. The first is the A badge, signifying simply having soloed a glider. Continuing with the program ultimately rewards pilots with a gold badge emblazoned with diamonds. There are awards for flying 1,000 kilometers, climbing above 40,000 feet, and so forth. The awards are cherished by their recipients and coveted by those yet to earn them.

Also, the Paris-based Fédération Aéronautique Internationale sponsors a program that allows pilots to earn prestigious, attractive, internationally recognized awards.

The FAA could work with the private sector to create a similar program that rewards pilots for completing a variety of challenges reflecting specified levels of achievement. Such challenges might include climbing to an airplane’s service ceiling to experience its characteristics there, landing at a given number of new airports, participating in a spot-landing contest, taking spin training, working with a mechanic to make a repair, and so forth. The list of potential challenges is limitless.

The Wings program has been a noble but questionably successful effort to promote voluntary recurrent training and fails to attract those most in need. After 26 years of stagnation, the program is in dire need of overhaul and revitalization.