The Ultimate “Minimalist” Private Pilot Syllabus
Rod’s Books Available on Your iPad or iPhone
All of Rod Machado’s books are now available as custom iPad and iPhone applications, with unique capabilities. This includes Rod Machado’s new Sport Pilot “Airplane” Handbook, too. These are far more than just ordinary e-books for your iThing. Download the free book sample app and check them out for yourself. With these apps, you’ll receive book updates any time Rod makes changes. No more having to purchase a new book every year to keep up with major changes in aviation. While you’re at it, check out all of Rod’s new downloadable videos by clicking here.
The Ultimate “Minimalist” Private Pilot Syllabus
This link takes you to a page where you can download a PDF of the FAA’s original private pilot syllabus published in 1971. This syllabus was found in the back of the old FAA Flight Instructor Handbook which is no longer available. The newer flight instructor handbook no longer contains a syllabus.
This is a minimalist syllabus and is one of the very best syllabi I’ve found for preparing someone for the private pilot certificate–or the sport pilot certificate (no need to do electronic navigation or some instrument training). It’s the method by which thousands upon thousands of pilots successfully earned their pilot certificate over the years with minimum cost.
What makes this syllabus unique is that it’s a “Stick and Rudder” syllabus and makes no attempt to teach a student things he or she doesn’t need to immediately know during flight training. I heartily recommend using this syllabus for anyone training under Part 61 of the regulations. For students training under Part 141 of the regulations, they should use the syllabus the FAA has approved for that particular flight school.
And, of course, if you feel that other aspects of aviation should be added to this syllabus, then have at it. But please remember that your objective when teaching someone how to fly is to “teach them to fly.” Your objective is not to make them into the general aviation version of an “airline pilot lite.” Since private pilot training is already scenario-based by design, you’ll see that there are no make-believe flight scenarios in these lessons with which to distract the student. These lessons also assume that you’ll take your student to the practice area and actually “practice” the flight maneuvers listed. You are not expected to take your student on a cross country flight (however short) while you simultaneously try teaching them how to fly. (Read my AOPA Pilot Article titled, In Defense of Stick and Rudder Training due out in March 2012 for more info on the value of stick and rudder training.)
For the student reading this, keep in mind that this syllabus provides for ground instruction prior to each lesson. It’s important to understand that your ability to do well in the air is based on having a lot of good ground instruction. In fact, an acceptable format is to have at least one hour of ground instruction for every hour of flight instruction given. And you would be expected to pay for your instructor’s time at his or her full hourly rate, too (in the long run you’ll end up paying a lot less for your training as a result of good ground instruction).
What does ground instruction offer you? It makes the lessons far more meaningful. Good ground instruction and a lot of it is what allows students to solo in 10-14 hours and obtain their private pilot certificates in the range of 45 hours (training two to three times a week, of course). That’s a fact. Now, I realize that a one-to-one hourly ratio of ground to flight instruction is a lot for some folks (in particular, their instructors who want to fly), but this certainly isn’t an unreasonable request. Those flight schools offering accelerated flight training who are able to move students through the private pilot curriculum in three weeks or less (with approximately 42 hours of flight time) do so because they provide a lot of ground training prior to each lesson.
So try convincing your flight instructor to spend more time with you on the ground explaining the details of the lesson, reviewing what’s expected of you, running through the procedures, steps and techniques to be practiced.
Additionally, many of the higher order cognitive skills that are all the rage to teach nowadays (situational awareness, aviation decision making, risk assessment and so on) can be learned just as well on the ground or in a simulator as they can in the air (no, not all of them, but certainly most of them). In fact, these skills are often better acquired on the ground by reading good books, studying DVDs and/or attending aviation seminars in person or via the web.
Finally, for any student reading this, send your instructor this link. Let him or her know that you are interested in using a “minimalist” syllabus (this one or another one your instructor prefers) for flight training. Of course, your instructor knows best and will decide whether or not this fits his or her training philosophy.
Sincerely,
Rod Machado
Hi Rod,
Thanks for another excellent column in the April AOPA mag. I can’t agree more that basic stick and rudder skills and basic understanding of how a plane flies is lacking most of todays training. Thankfully, I learned in 1974 from a stick and rudder guy. I wish everyone learned that way and had to learn spin recovery.
Last year a good friend killed himself because he stopped flying the plane. I had thought him to be an excellent pilot, even he had a previous crash. He had learned in the new scenario based training environment and went quickly from private to instrument rated. The NTSB factual account shows how he completely abandoned basic flying. Article link – http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120312/NEWS/120319882
Keep up your great work! Best Regards, Larry Zepp, EAA Chapter 2, Smith Field, Fortw Wayne, IN
I got my licenses and ratings prior to ’71 (’66-’67) through an approved school (is that the Part 141?). The ground school was all done at Miami-Dade Junior College and the flying was done at Burnside-Ott, at nearby OPF. There was probably even better than 1:1 on the hours, but the most important thing to me, only appreciated many years later, was the intensity of 200 hours of flying in 18 months. Yeah, 11 or 12 hours a month doesn’t sound like much, but it sure beats one or two hours per month when you’re in an ad hoc program as finances permit. I was very lucky and very well trained.
While I didn’t get the airline job I was shooting for, the Instrument rating was what qualified me to apply for the ATC job I wound up in for 30 years. It’s a toss up whether that was “second best” or not. I’d have loved to fly the “big ‘arn”, but world’s greatest video game wasn’t bad, either.
LRod
ZJX, ORD, ZAU retired
Rod, with all due respect, I disagree with your comments in your April article in AOPA Pilot with regard to blaming scenario based training for the current flat fatal accident rate. The rate remains flat because pilots are basically practicing poor risk management, a higher order pilot skill. My own analyses of fatal accidents for clients consistently demonstrate that risk mangement accidents (i.e. pilot failed to identify, assess, and/or mitigate risk) account for between 63 and 78 per cent of fatal accident root causes. Pilot physical handling skills are the root cause of only a small proportion of fatal accidents. The fatal accident rate isn’t coming down because the industry has generally not adopted higher level pilot skills as core curriculum methods and content, contrary to your assertion. As for training pilots to be “mini airline pilots” that’s probably a good thing to do if they fly a Cirrus or similar airplane. By the way, for the Cirrus, my analysis of fatal accidents through early 2008 found that 64 per cent of them were due to faulty risk mangement. As the head of FAA’s GA division from 2001-2005, I implemented the FAA Industry Training Standards (FITS) program to promote training in higher order pilot skills. I also practice what I preach, with 9300 accident free hours, mostly using airplanes for transportation. I can assert that successfully managing risk is why I’m able to make this statement. The “stick and rudder” skills in the early FAA document you cited have very little to do with my own safety success. Thet’re certainly important but in the final analysis, they are not the skills that are the root cause of most fatal accidents. I hesitate to point this out, but Mr. Zepp’s late friend was in one of my accident samples (for his “first” fatal accident). In both accident files, the markers of a “risk management accident” were clearly evident. To prevent these tragedies in the future, we need to undertake training reform that emphasizes higher order pilot skills, especially risk management.
Greetings Robert:
Thank you for taking the time to read my recent article: In Defense of Stick and Rudder Training. Even though we’ve not met personally, I’ve heard many nice things about you and your contribution to FITS (FAA-Industry Training Standards) and general aviation.
If you’ve read any of my other writings over the past several years, you know I’m not against scenario based training. My article clearly states, “We should teach higher-order skills, but not by sacrificing fundamental skills in the process.” Instead, I’m against the way the FAA encourages that scenario-based training be taught to primary students, because I feel it is antithetical to the principles of “building block” learning.
I also didn’t argue that scenario-based training is the “blame” for the “current flat ‘fatal’ accident rate.” In fact, I used the phrase “aviation accidents,” meaning all fixed-wing accidents. Stick and rudder accidents aren’t always fatal. I argued that if FITS strategies were effective, “…then we should be seeing a reduction in aviation accidents.” FITS has been around for nearly a decade and it clearly hasn’t reduced accidents in that time (the accident rate has actually increased slightly). You suggest this is a result of the industry not adopting FITS. I’d argue that FITS has been used, but it’s simply not as effective as the FAA would like it to be.
In my opinion and with all due respect, some (by no means all) FITS strategies confuse and mislead instructors, increase the cost of flight training and reduce the chance that someone might actually become a pilot. That is not a good for aviation. Nevertheless, I do support the basic premise of FITS (it has many admirable features). I just think the core philosophy hasn’t been developed and applied as effectively as it could be. There’s a big gap between what FITS can do in theory and its day-to-day application by flight instructors who have wildly varying skill levels, training, desire to understand its core concepts, etc. I will argue these points in a future article, but I’d be happy to share them with you personally, if you like.
If you are arguing that a lack of risk management skill is the primary cause of most (fatal and non-fatal) aviation accidents, then this is in my opinion difficult to substantiate with any available data. A case can be made that over 40% of all general aviation accidents result from poor stick and rudder skills (Nall Report – 2009, Page 11). With more careful analysis, that number can be shown to be even higher, perhaps 50% or more. Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I did an analysis of 2011’s fatal and non-fatal U. S. Cirrus accidents, and found that 30% were clearly the result of a lack of basic flight skills (if you eliminate in-flight emergencies and those apparently unexplainable accidents, that number climbs to 46%).
If that weren’t convincing enough, the 2001 HFACS study showed that a stunning 60.5 % of commercial aviation accidents (121 and 135) were the result of “Skill-based errors.” As it stands, statistics suggest that there’s an immediate payoff to be had by spending more time teaching basic flying skills during a student’s formative training hours. The FAA’s FITS literature says, “We do this [teach FITS] without compromising basic stick and rudder skills.” I think the evidence suggests that this isn’t the effect FITS has had on pilots in training.
Sincerely,
Rod Machado
I remember when I first became a flight instructor in 1994, when I was reviewing the Jeppesen syllabus. I had been flying for 16 years at that point. I was a bit confused at the sequence Jeppesen arranged training tasks; especially the first instrument training. If I’m recalling correctly, it was either the second or third lesson the Jeppesen syllabus had the student “flying by sole reference to instruments”; what most of us call “under the hood” … even though I reckon no one uses a hood anymore.
I really like your back to basics approach. Even though I was a brand new instructor in 1994 when I was using the Jeppesen syllabus … at the direction of my Chief Flight Instructor … I refused to put a brand new student under the hood that early in their training. It didn’t make sense to me since they had not yet learned how to maintain level flight by looking at the REAL horizon. Instead of encouraging a student to look at the instruments, I discouraged it by sometimes covering the instruments up if I thought they were depending on them that early.
I think many miss the point when it comes to flight training. I don’t believe there is a one-fits-all approach to flight training. Either way, all must obtain a firm grasp of the basics first. Flight training should vary depending on whether that pilot will soon be zooming around in an F-18, or has some experience flying with family and/or friends, or a young timid person that has never sat in an airplane before. What is their intent? To fly their daddy’s Cub? To fly corporate for their current boss as soon as they have the ratings? To rent the flight school’s 150 to fly within the local region? We’re simply not all the same, why should flight training be the same for all?
I have only had 3 flights in a glider, however those flights, plus some research has allowed me to develop an opinion that the industry has missed the boat on what actions should take place to make flight training more affordable, and better. I believe gliding is the key. Gliders have been pushed aside and hidden from mainstream aviation. They often operate from small rural airstrips few know about. I believe that 99.9% of the folks that think about learning to fly, and then drive out to the local airport, that they know about, have no idea that learning to fly gliders is an option. I wish the FAA had somehow promoted gliders instead of LSAs. I am not suggesting that LSAs is a bad idea; I am simply suggesting that it isn’t enough. The cost of a typical LSA is a key indicator that they cannot save the industry from continue decline. The beauty of gliders is there is no need to create a new category of aircraft or pilots. No need to do any research, determine minimum standards, etc… it’s already here! The sad truth is that it’s simply kept a secret, like someone’s bad uncle that no one wants to talk about. Unfortunately, it’s like a lot of evils in our society; it’s all about MONEY! I suspect there is more money to be made selling and promoting LSAs then there is gliders; at least for the short term since the industry is still declining. I’m sorry to sound cynical, but why else would a ready-made, already existing solution to flight training industry decline be ignored? I think the Europeans learned this long ago, if I’m correct. I think gliders have always been more popular there than here.
Most of us know why so many students do not finish their training; and why so many pilots that do get their license soon quit flying. MONEY! The industry does not recognize that most people that drive out to the flight school the first time have no clue that there are so many rules and regulations, the need to learn so much about meteorology, and a need to spend so much time learning how to obtain pre-flight info or learn so much about the mechanics of the airplane. They just want to fly! And I don’t consider that a bad thing. Flight training should be geared to accommodate those people. After all, there money is just as green. So there should be training programs to teach people how to fly the aircraft, and nothing else. The industry could consider it a teaser. Many who obtain such training will want more, and then go for the traditional Private Pilot training. But in the mean time, a lot of customers are walking out the door after losing interest very early when they quickly hear so much talk about everything EXCEPT why they drove to the airport to begin with.
I’ve not spent a lot of time around glider-ports, but what little I have, I get the impression they get it. I believe most of these operations routinely give a lot of rides to those who are curious every weekend. No talk of rules, weather, license, etc…. just strap in and lets go flying!
I admit I cannot think of specifics of how to get gliders more visible to wanna-be pilots, how to incorporate glider operations into more active general aviation airports, but I do believe it is possible. I use to routinely fly at airports that had both ultralights and skydive operations and all went smooth. I see no problem with glider operations mixing it up with routine GA traffic; especially since gliders will most likely be using the grass.
Ok, enough rambling. I have a dream of starting a glider operation at the Class D airport I operate at and live next to. That will be a challenge; although my airport has less traffic than most of the non-towered airports nearby. I may call my flight school, “Back to Basics Flight”.
Thanks for helping me not feel alone. With all the talk of changing flight training to a concept that seems further away from the basics instead of getting closer, it has made me feel out of touch. In fact it’s actually caused me to lose interest in flight training.
Mark Honeycutt
CFII @ KECG
Rod, Thanks for interesting article about the early edition of the Flight Instructor’s Handbook. I started teaching in 1978 and totally agree with you about the amount of ground school needed to cut down and improve your flight training. It’s nice to see someone who agrees with me!
Rod,
Do you realy give the minimalist flying-course? How much money would be involved ? (including lodging) And which certificate would be earned?
Thank you,
Jonjacob,
Netherlands
REMINDER MESSAGE
Dear Mr.Machado
First off all tahnk you for your valuable information in you web page. I am from TURKEY my name is SUKRU YESILER also I am 44 years old.
I am just completed my previous work life in Turkey as a Foreign Trade Specialist with administrative positions. That means I complete 25 years official work time that is required time for retairement but I must wait until complete the 49 years. I live in ANKARA with my familiy that is include my two soon one of is 6 the other is 16 years old.
Dear Mr,Machado,
I am already PPL Licence holder that is obtained from Turkey according to JAA regulations at 2008 however I have just 55 Hrs total loged time in C-172.
PLEASE HELP ME ABOUT :
I want to continnue my pilot career but I know that my age and already achived flight experiance is not matched.
As a results of the my reserch in USA training markets; the accademies which are to eligable to training CPL/IR + CFI/CFII/MEI at about 5-6 months after that continue as a paid flight instructor on the same accademy untill to reach the 1.500 hrs. that is required min 17-18 months according to school information.
After the ATPL (FAA) obtained I will focus to the FAA and ICAO countries for first enterry level jobs. I am not focussed directly major airline job that will be any kind of commuter airlines,bussines jets,Regional airlines,cargo flights the last of alternate is work as Flight Instructor.
Currentlly I am in border of the my final decitions making please help me I am to late or Is there any chance for a career pilot for a living.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration
With my personal best regards,
SUKRU YESILER / ANKARA / TURKEY
A good pilot training school must have fast flying, good employment opportunities as well as best training environment with high qualified instructor.