Good Day,

I request your help in a very sensitive topic that I am sure everyone would have a little bit of input on. That topic is specifically the deficiencies in training given commercial pilot students. This ranges from experience requirements to knowledge and skill requirements. The question I ask of everyone is where is improvement required in order to make any new commercial pilots better equipped to deal with the reality of flying in Canada? You may touch base on flight tests (and how they simply build on PPL standards), ground school requirements, (maybe you think TC should spend more time on high altitude training, more turbine engine time or something else rather than basket weaving) or just general crap flight training from brand new Class 4 Instructors who don't really know what the industry needs for new CPLs.

The reason I ask is that I'm researching this topic. The more positive input we have, the more equipped we will be when we write our next survey to gather empirical number driven data; hopefully being able to make a difference in the industry by identifying weaknesses and creating a module outlining suggested ways or methods to teach new commercial pilots in regular flight training units.

Those who wish to bash this thread can know that I have already used the search function, I have already done an enormous amount of research into foreign regulations and simply want an opinion. I don't want this to turn into a pissing match between members who choose to 7500 this.

Ahead of time I appreciate your input and look forward to everyones' responses.

Personally, I think a CPL holder should:

- have some decent stick & rudder skills. A 10 knot crosswind
should not pose a problem. Should be able to display precision
control of the aircraft with respect to speed control on final,
lateral distance from centerline during landing, touchdown point,
etc.

- should be competent on more than one type of aircraft, and
should have enough stick & rudder skill and general systems
knowledge (fuel systems, retractable gear) that transitioning
to a new type should not require a week in Wichita

- should be able to line service his own aircraft - refuel, check
and top up oil, clean windscreen and leading edges (why?),
check and top up tire pressure, and any other elementary
maintenance items.

- should be able to safely but expeditiously accomplish a mission
in an aircraft. For example, take that airplane on the ramp and fly it
to an airport 200 miles away, possibly in another country.
Calculation of weight and balance and preflight should take less
than one hour. Should be familiar with EAPIS and border crossing
procedures, both directions. How to get a customs decal, check
TFR status, etc. Should have his own GPS and cellphone.

- should be able to safely fly in legal minimum weather conditions.
Should be able to fly a circuit in 1000/3, for example.

- should have knowledge of 602/605/702/703 regulations

Bottom line: you need 200 hrs for a CPL. Don't just do 50 hrs,
four times over. That's probably my biggest gripe with low time
(less than 1000TT) pilots - get some different experience. Leave
the nest. Fly tailwheel. Fly glider. Fly floats. Fly retractable. Get
your multi. Fly in a different place (coast, mountains). Get some
breadth of experience.

Concrete example. You're a proud holder of a shiny new CPL.
Great. See that privately-registered Cherokee tied down out
there? You know, the one with the flat tires, oleos, and battery,
that hasn't flown in 11 months since it's last annual?

I want you to deliver it to Elmira, NY. Yes, I know you've never
flown a Cherokee before, but you can figure it out, you're a
CPL. Get a certified cheque from the new owner before you
give him the keys, then book an airline ticket back home.

Let me know when you get back, I've got another job for you.

Can I come work for you? That sounds like a great job. On a more serious note, they increased the amount of hours of ground school needed (doubled it in fact from 40 to 80 hours), but did not add any material needing to be taught. I would suggest that extra 40 hours be spent on the more practical side of flying. Many of CS's suggestions should be taught during that time. The boarder crossing, turbine, and more specifics on all the different types of operations would be a good start. As well as teaching basics of Maintenance (some do touch on this, but especially in younger pilots who likely don't have a working knowledge of mechanics and engines etc. more needs to be taught) I'll admit that in the above scenario I'd have to look up how to fix the oleos, I'm not perfect. Many schools do some sort of survival training but many do not. This should definitely be a requirement in my mind. That's all I can come up with off the top of my head. Others with more experience can undoubtedly add more.

in the above scenario I'd have to look up how to fix the oleos

That's exactly the question I was looking for. I am NOT expecting
a new CPL to wheel a nitrogen bottle over and top up the oleos, but I am
expecting the new CPL to notice the obvious problem on the walkaround,
then contract an AME/AMO (as appropriate) to get it fixed. The AME could
top up the tires at the same time. The CPL could even look up the tire
pressures in the POH. He might even think about what he's going to
do with a battery that's been left to go flat for 11 months (hint - it
is not recoverable).

I would however hope that he would first do a careful examination of the
aircraft docs to make sure it is legal - annual? AD's? ELT? - and then do
a careful preflight, because it hasn't flown in 11 months. Popping open
the cowls and looking carefully all over the airplane for bird's nests would
be a really good idea, for an aircraft that's been tied down outside. Also,
what are the gas cap seals like? Have the fuel tanks been filling with water
during the many rains in the last 11 months?

Also, I would hope he would carefully inspect the static and pitot ports
and the fuel vents for mud daubers plugging them up - it's happened to
me.

Now, some of you will scoff and say that a CPL doesn't need to know
this kind of detailed stuff. Well, you're probably too young to remember
the crash of a Boeing 757 in 1996: Aeroperú Flight 603. The cause was
found to be taped-over static ports, left there by the maintenance
workers. All 70 people on board died.

You probably don't recall the crash of a hideously expensive B-2
at Guam in 2008, either:

the B-2 crashed after "heavy, lashing rains" caused water to enter skin-flush air-data sensors, which feed angle of attack and yaw data to the computerized flight-control system. The water distorted preflight readings in three of the plane's 24 sensors, causing the flight-control system to send an erroneous correction to the B-2 on takeoff. The B-2 quickly stalled, became unrecoverable, and crashed

Yeah, who needs to bother learning about this kind of detail?

Thanks so far for the replies as they are great. As much as we can say CPLs should know the following things as an example, we need to somehow implement them into a standard for ALL commercial pilot students. The suggestion of implementing these ideas into the ground school requirements is fantastic as it would be a uniform change for everyone and is somewhat measurable.

A thought: there will be many crashes of airplanes in the next
year. However, I will wager a fairly large sum of money that
there will be no new causes for these accidents yet to happen.

What does this mean? Well, most of us are ignoring the lessons
of history, and reliving the same mistakes over and over again.
Don't do that.

Yes, if you crash in the coming year, it probably going to be
the result of you making the same mistake as someone else
has before. I'm not sure about you, but that would make me
feel pretty stupid.

Suggestion for a unit within the CPL groundschool: categories of
accidents, and their causes: how you can avoid repeating history.


Another suggest for a unit within the CPL groundschool: basic
economics. Supply and demand. Price elasticity curve. Economic
rent. Comparative advantage. Fundamentals of accounting,
marketing and finance. You're going to tell me that a CPL doesn't
need to know this stuff, but I must disagree. A CPL is going to
spend the rest of his life wrestling with the management of a company
that he hates, and understanding the landscape of the battlefield
will help him enormously.


It goes without saying that a CPL needs a strong background in
theory of flight and aerodynamics. I've posted this here before:

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/avia ... r%2004.pdf

Yes, it's American. Get over it. Airplanes fly the same on both
side of the border, so don't worry, Margaret Atwood and Anne
Murray are still safe.


It also goes without saying that a CPL needs a strong knowledge
of aircraft systems such as

- fuel systems. This is a big one. No fuel, you crash (see above).
Learn about the difference between engine driven fuel pumps and
electrical boost pumps, and when you use them. Examine complicated
fuel systems with multiple tanks, involving cross-feeding twins. I
might suggest finishing off with the C421B fuel system as a case
example, because it's a nightmare for the uninitiated.

- hydraulic systems used to deploy flaps, landing gear, etc

- emergency landing gear extension systems

- janitrol-type gasoline powered heaters in the noses of twins

- vacuum systems. Regulators. Vacuum pump failure.

- pressure systems. Pressurized aircraft and how you fly them.

- electrical systems. What is a volt? What is an amp? What is
a generator? What is an alternator? What is a voltage regulator?
Finish off by examining an electrical system wiring diagram in a twin.

- I wouldn't spend too much time on turbines. That's more
appropriate for a later ATPL/IATRA course. I suspect that 99%
of the CPL's will spend at least their first 1000 hrs in a piston
single and then twin, so why not learn about them first?

Colonel Sanders wrote: - should be able to line service his own aircraft - refuel, check
and top up oil, clean windscreen and leading edges (why?),
check and top up tire pressure, and any other elementary
maintenance items.

You should note that TC strongly disagrees with you on this point. In their opinion these things a new CPL is grossly unqualified to do these tasks without specific training to do so. Or maybe your inspector was more lenient when approving your MCM? Something about protecting the unwashed masses again.

TC strongly disagrees with you on this point

Don't worry - it surely won't be the first time, nor will it be the last.

I find it very uninteresting that Transport wants a CPL to be incompetent
at elementary maintenance. That is not how it should be, and I am
frankly uninterested in conflicting opinions.

maybe your inspector was more lenient when approving your MCM?

Hey, that's pretty funny. TC took SIX YEARS to approve our MCM, and
only after I threatened to shut the school down and mail that back their goddamned
FTU OC because of their obstructionism. It got so bad, the regional managers
came to visit. They read our MCM - an incredibly thick and complicated monstrosity,
when you consider that we don't have an AMO and we don't do any maintenance -
and told me they had never seen such a complicated MCM for such a small operation.

I replied that it surely was not my MCM - every paragraph that had been added
to that abortion, had been at the insistence of a Transport Inspector.

On the subject of new CPL's being incompetent at elementary maintenance ...

Remember a thread a couple years back, that got very heated and deleted?

A couple of young pilots were on their long cross-country from Brampton, and
stopped at my tiny airport for fuel. No problem. However, there was a problem
when they tried to start their engine - that familiar whirring sound of a starter spinning
but not engaging the flywheel.

They got on the phone to an AME in Brampton, and prepared to put the airplane
away for the night. Brampton would fly down an AME in another aircraft to
repair it, the next morning.

Technical interlude: I hate prestolite starters. Heavy, and when the bendix
drive gets dirty - or worse, people oil it and the oil attracts more dirt - it
sticks. The easy fix is to squirt a little electrical contact cleaner on it.

So while the kids were on the phone, I went to my hangar, got a spray
can of electrical contact cleaner, and with the red straw, squirted the bendix
drive. I told the kids to try starting it again, and voila it worked, and off
they went. Saved considerable trouble and money for everyone.

Note that I did not suggest hand-bombing. Although I am very familiar
with that, it's not always setting a good example.

Anyways, the usual righteous idiots here on AvCan went nuts on my @ss.
Said that they were going to report me to TC. For what, I am not sure.
The thread got really nasty with the legal beagles in full howl, and then it
was deleted.

I am certain that I did the right thing. What I did - clean a surface which
is externally accessible, requiring no disassembly - is no different than
cleaning a windshield. And if some @sshole wants to lay a charge
against me for helping those kids, go right ahead. I'll fax the usual
Request for Review, Request for Stay and Request for Disclosure to
Mary Cannon at the Tribunal, and I'll make another trip downtown.

Shiny Side Up wrote:

Colonel Sanders wrote: - should be able to line service his own aircraft - refuel, check
and top up oil, clean windscreen and leading edges (why?),
check and top up tire pressure, and any other elementary
maintenance items.

You should note that TC strongly disagrees with you on this point. In their opinion these things a new CPL is grossly unqualified to do these tasks without specific training to do so. Or maybe your inspector was more lenient when approving your MCM? Something about protecting the unwashed masses again.

I CAN I CAN ! he says wildly waving his arms from the back of the class to get TeaChers attention. I even have the little piece of paper issued by the FTU where I sometimes teach. It proves I have had aircaft servicing training (valid only for C 172 P and C 172 S) . And my training file has carefully documented the 2 hours of "training" I recieved and has a copy of the 10 question exam, testing my knowledge on aircraft servicing. I scored 100 % on the exam , although perhaps you will think that is a little less impressive when I tell you that I was also the one who created the exam . Value added = zero, value of keeping TC off our backs = priceless

Colonel Sanders wrote:

TC strongly disagrees with you on this point

Don't worry - it surely won't be the first time, nor will it be the last.

I find it very uninteresting that Transport wants a CPL to be incompetent
at elementary maintenance. That is not how it should be, and I am
frankly uninterested in conflicting opinions.

Only brought it up because, while you and I know how things should be, if people are wondering why it isn't that way, there's a very big stick out there that beats against it.

maybe your inspector was more lenient when approving your MCM?

Hey, that's pretty funny. TC took SIX YEARS to approve our MCM, and
only after I threatened to shut the school down and mail that back their goddamned
FTU OC because of their obstructionism. It got so bad, the regional managers
came to visit. They read our MCM - an incredibly thick and complicated monstrosity,
when you consider that we don't have an AMO and we don't do any maintenance -
and told me they had never seen such a complicated MCM for such a small operation.

I replied that it surely was not my MCM - every paragraph that had been added
to that abortion, had been at the insistence of a Transport Inspector.

Come now, you know I jest here because I share your pain. One of my favorite parts about the production of our MCM (which took a similar ammount of time and a lot of railing against big brother) was how I had became, after years of safely completing said tasks, unqualified to do said basic tasks. For a while I wasn't even supposed to be checking the oil in the airplanes because I didn't have the appropriate training. The point is, there's starting to get a lot of red tape in the way of being able to train pilots effectively. Stuff that doesn't even make sense, where bizzarrely I can have PPL holders do stuff that a CPL holder can't. I guess if one wants to add something to CPL training that hasn't been mentioned its to know about MCMs and fun paperwork.

How to make a grown instructor cry:

In Canada, we have the out-of-control monstrosity known as CAR 406/426.

In the USA, they have FAR 91.409(1)(b): click on http://tinyurl.com/78joc5h
which says:

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. The 100-hour limitation may be exceeded by not more than 10 hours while en route to reach a place where the inspection can be done. The excess time used to reach a place where the inspection can be done must be included in computing the next 100 hours of time in service.

See any difference?

As someone who just finished their CPL in the last few years, I’d like to throw my two cents in ☺

I agree with a lot of what’s been said. For the most part, I think my practical CPL training was good. I think I turned out as a competent pilot. I don’t think I’m a super 200 hour wonder, nor do I think I’m immune to fault, but I have faith in myself to do things to a certain standard, learn from my mistakes and swallow my pride when I need to ask for help.

I cannot say the same thing for some of the other students I’ve flown with, nor can I say the same for the instructors. I’ve flown with a few of my peers who seem to get extremely nervous in flight, don’t know little details that they should, and don’t have any semblance of hands and feet. I whole-heartedly think a lot of them aren’t meant to be pilots, but because schools just want their money, nobody is going to tell them. Huge mistake number 1.

And then there are the instructors, fresh off CPL/Multi/IFR. I won’t generalize my comment to all the green instructors, because some of them are great people with a lot of skill. However, the greater bunches of them are just people who have absolutely NO inclination to teach or instill good values in others, and who are just doing it to build hours. Bottom-line: they really don’t care. And I think if you’re going into instructing (even if you’re doing it to build hours), you HAVE to have an inclination to teach. I think if you don’t, you start letting students get away with little things because your impatient or fed up, and that’s where it gets ugly. Instructors with passion make a world of difference in the type of pilots that are produced.

As for the classroom, I can’t say I’ve ever been more bored or felt less challenged than sitting in CPL ground school. It was repetitive, nobody put any emphasis on the greater responsible that comes with your CPL, and the greater dedication you have to give to your flying. What I find extremely alarming is the half-assed effort that goes into teaching human factors. I think that the subject that deals with factors that result in the death of more than 90% of our peers in aviation related accidents MIGHT just deserve a little more than a sigh and a “sorry we have to talk about hypoxia again”. It is by far the biggest joke of a class and everyone regards it as the “bird course”. HOW is that possible??! Shouldn’t it be right up there with practical Met and CARS?? Ohh man don’t even get me started on GFA interpretation…

And then there’s the practical knowledge, as you guys mentioned before. I was lucky enough to have an instructor for my PPL who would take every chance to really explain to me where everything was and how it worked and why. I was even luckier to have a CPL instructor who would take me into the hangar when planes were being worked on and quiz me on pretty much every wire and part of a Cessna. Being a visual learner, I think this was some of the most valuable information when it came to learning systems. Unfortunately, it's not something a lot of students are exposed to, which is a real downfall.

Anywho, that’s my rambling for the day!

Unfortunately, too many people seem to think that their first 1000 hours is going to be their first 100 hours, repeated 10 times, until they can get hired, and then their "real training" can begin at their first real job.

There is a gold mine of information and ideas in this forum, as to how to improve PPL and CPL flight training in Canada. It's free for the taking. But if no one wants to improve what they are doing, well, I guess things are going to stay the same.

Colonel Sanders wrote: It's free for the taking.

Am I entitled to these entitlements?

Only if you keep voting Liberal.

I live in Alberta. I try not to vote for the party that owns this province. I can't imagine voting the only party worse. Liberal indeed. We like the wild rose guy for the next provincial election even though he will lose to the PC guy.

So I guess I'm not entitled. Carry on thinking I'm going to vote liberal with the pencil dwarfed by my fat fingers, a cheese burger in the other hand if it makes you feel better.

Beefitarian wrote: So I guess I'm not entitled. Carry on thinking I'm going to vote liberal with the pencil dwarfed by my fat fingers, a cheese burger in the other hand if it makes you feel better.

Normally if you voted Liberal, I would assume that you might be sipping your tripple whipped caramel frappacino, wearing a beret and writing poetry in the next tab. I know better though, and the fat fingers with the cheeseburger ain't far from the mark.

There is a gold mine of information and ideas in this forum, as to how to improve PPL and CPL flight training in Canada. It's free for the taking. But if no one wants to improve what they are doing, well, I guess things are going to stay the same.

Oddly enough, though I know a lot of people who read these forums, it is infrequent that something gets asked about how we improve stuff or how they can improve their own flying skills. I suspect that those interested in the topic in Canada are all here and really there's a lot of preaching to the choir.