Wings of Carolina Pre-Solo Expectations

I prefer to see a presolo pilot obtain a standard weather briefing from Flight Service prior to each flight. It is well and good if he is aware of and utilizes any of the myriad other sources of weather information - the club’s WSI system, DUAT(S), internet services such as the Aviation Weather Center, the Weather Channel, and so on—but these should be in addition to or in support of a standard briefing from Flight Service. Personally, I expect each of my flight students to obtain a full standard FSS briefing before each and every flight, dual or solo. I realize that not every club instructor requires that the student obtain a full weather briefing prior to every dual flight—although I think it is a good idea—but students at this stage should be able to obtain and properly interpret a standard FSS briefing and should not contemplate solo flight without one. They should also be aware that the club requires student pilots to obtain “current weather” from the FSS prior to every solo flight (SOP IV-10). We can quibble over whether this requires a standard briefing or merely a check of the ASOS, but there is much for a student pilot to learn by listening to a full briefing for every flight and we would prefer that they make a habit of it, even in benign weather. If nothing else, a standard briefing begins to give structure to a new pilot’s understanding of the weather and weather products, including the importance of adverse conditions, the weather phenomena that are of concern to pilots, the difference between reported and forecast weather, the implications of winds aloft, and the nature and importance of pilot reports. Furthermore, in this era of abundant TFRs, complicated NOTAMS, and zero tolerance from the FAA, a standard briefing as a matter of record is useful protection, although not a guarantee, against FAA violation action.

For the presolo, the club expects the pilot to obtain a standard weather briefing, to know what he needs to tell the briefer, to understand generally what elements compose a standard briefing, and to be able to make an informed judgment about the suitability of the weather for student pilot solo flight. The club does not expect a sophisticated knowledge of weather theory or a detailed knowledge of each weather product at this stage of training. The student pilot should be able to speak to the general weather picture, be able to distinguish between reported weather and forecast weather, understand the implications of surface winds and be able to compute a crosswind component, and have some appreciation for the elements of a weather briefing, such as pireps and notams, that cannot be discerned by looking out of the window. Our aviation world is rapidly changing, with abundant and sources of weather information coming online, we have an obligation to expose student pilots to useful sources, wherever they are found, but we must also equip student pilots with a logical structure for interpreting this information – a structure that already exists in the standard weather briefing. We may explore alternative sources of weather and flight information, but as instructors we must be aware that sending a student pilot out to fly without a standard FSS briefing places a burden on us as instructors and the pilot himself to inform himself of all pertinent information, including TFRs, Notams, and advisories

Presolo pilots should be generally familiar with all of the SOPs that apply to member flight in club aircraft and should be aware that those SOPs will soon apply to them. These would include SOPs applying to such as scheduling, runway lengths, low flight and so on. The club does not expect the presolo pilot to be able to recount in detail all of these SOPs, but he or she should be aware of them, be able to make reasonable assumptions about them, locate them in the handbook, and properly interpret them.

The club does expect the presolo pilot to be specifically familiar with the club SOPs that apply to student pilot solo flight, such as the fuel requirements and wx requirements for student pilot solo flight and the requirement for regular dual flights during the solo period.

I do not expect a presolo student pilot to have an encyclopedic knowledge of Part 91, but the club does expect him or her to be at least acquainted with the contents of Part 91, understand its implications, and know where to find answers to specific questions about the regulations covering Part 91 flight. Those elements of the regulations that directly impact student solo flights, such as airspace designations and requirements, should be familiar to students and should of course be a part of cross country flight training prior to any solo cross country flight. We do expect student pilots to be generally familiar with the sections of Part 61 that govern student pilot solo flight and to be aware of the limitations imposed on student pilot solo flight, such as wx minimums, no flight in furtherance of business, and, of course, no passengers. Above all else, student pilots should be fully aware that when they undertake solo flight responsibility for adherence to both club SOPs and FARs rests solely on their shoulders. The club will not be sympathetic to violations of those regulations and will not consider “my instructor didn’t tell me” a suitable defense. Students need to be aware that, although their instructor should inform them of the necessary endorsements and should endeavor to keep them current and to supervise the student’s solo flying, ultimate responsibility resides with the student. The absolute responsibility that accompanies pilot in command privileges may be foreign to some new pilots and must be recognized and accepted.

Student pilots should be aware of basic requirements such as maintenance and inspection requirements and their proper documentation. The club does not expect students to know the intricacies of all the required inspections but they should be at least cognizant of the requirement for annual inspections and be aware that those inspections are documented in the aircraft logs. As to limitations, students should be aware of the various performance charts in the POH and should recognize that those charts must be interpreted conservatively and that the club in some cases requires standards that are more conservative than those of the performance charts (fuel consumption estimates for flight planning, for instance.) Student pilots should be able to calculate a weight and balance for the airplane. I will seldom ask them to do that calculation, since the required written quiz includes a weight and balance computation, but I will expect the student pilot to understand why they must use W&B information specific to the airplane, where to find it, and how to use it. I will also expect the student pilot to be able to explain why proper weight and balance is crucial to safe flight. Students should also understand those basic matters necessary for them to properly manage the airplane for their use: the squawk book, the type of fuel and oil to be used, and how to tow, park, and handle the airplane properly.

The club expects student pilots to do a careful, systematic preflight before each flight. The student pilot may or may not choose to use the club’s written checklist, but I would prefer that he not use a different checklist. The club expects the preflight to be conducted in the same fashion each time, beginning in the cockpit, progressing around the airplane in the prescribed manner from the pilot’s main wheel counter-clockwise around the aircraft. Each of the items on the checklist should be examined and the student pilot should understand why each is important. The preflight routine described by the club’s checklist is certainly not the only way to conduct a proper preflight, but the club believes that there is value in a consistent, standardized procedure, and the club’s checklist is as good a routine as any and better than most.

The student pilot should use the starting checklist and should have some awareness of proper priming and starting techniques. The student pilot should not abuse the starter, should not over-prime, should prime in a timely fashion, should be knowledgeable about preheat for winter flight if the season requires it, and should know what to do in case of a starting fire. The club does not want to see a student engaging in any one of the follies that can lead to aircraft damage or injury to persons and property. The BEFORE START checklist should be used, but starting should be accomplished with vigilance outside the aircraft and awareness of the aircraft’s position and surroundings. Safety is paramount here: the student should visually clear the area before starting and should not rely solely on his announcement to alert bystanders. Immediately after engine start, the pilot should confirm that the aircraft is not moving and should check the oil pressure before any other tasks. Our club policy is to avoid lingering on the ramp after engine start.

Taxi should be at a careful pace and brake and steering performance should be checked early in the taxi. Taxiing at an excessive speed should not be tolerated. In the taxi, the club expects vigilance for obstacles, aircraft and people, a modest pace, and good technique – no dragging of the brakes, and use of rudder and nosewheel steering to accomplish turns unless braking is necessitated by the radius of the turn.

The runup should be done in a disciplined manner and either achieved item by item according to the checklist or confirmed after completion by reference to the checklist. The club discourages runups on the parking ramp, which are dangerous at worst and obnoxious at best. Some instructors teach IFR taxi checks (observation of gyroscopic instruments) to primary students; some do not. Primacy of learning would suggest that this could be a useful part of primary training. Specific locations for runups, appropriate either runway, have been suggested by the club. I am not dogmatic about these locations, but expect a solo-ready student pilot to be sensitive to the issue and to locate a safe and courteous place to conduct a runup.

The club expects checklists to be used for flight procedures and recommends the challenge-response method as opposed to the “mumble” method of checklist usage. BEFORE START, START, and BEFORE TAKEOFF checklists are best accomplished item by item with reference to the checklist. In-flight tasks may be accomplished from memory and checked by reference to the checklist. Some club instructors teach a flow procedure for accomplishing pre-landing tasks, which is acceptable, so long as a disciplined, consistent method is used to accomplish the necessary tasks.

Most of our instructors teach primary students to line up on the centerline momentarily before takeoff and check agreement between the runway number, the aircraft compass, and the heading indicator – a very useful habit. Takeoff should begin and end on the centerline, or at least without dramatic divergence from it, and rotation should be at the appropriate airspeed and to the appropriate attitude, without appreciable drift. We do not expect the student pilot to make perfect takeoffs, but we cannot accept those failures of technique with potentially hazardous consequences. For instance, while we desire proper coordination, we may tolerate insufficient or slightly excessive right rudder in the departure climb; however, a tendency to over-rotate or an inattention to the proper pitch attitude on climbout will not be tolerated. As a check pilot, I do not want to see the pilot chasing the airspeed, but rather he should be aware of the proper pitch attitude, attain and maintain it by visual reference, and not vary from it in turns.

Vigilance for traffic should be a habit. The club expects the student pilot to lower the aircraft attitude periodically in the climb to scan the sky ahead for traffic and to check for traffic before initiating turns. Attention should be almost exclusively outside the airplane on climbout.

“Position and hold,” and “Lineup and wait,” are not appropriate at an uncontrolled airport. This is not a pilot-initiated practice.

The student should lead the altitude by a reasonable number of feet, pitch to the normal cruise attitude, wait for the airplane to accelerate to something approximating cruise speed, then reduce power to a reasonable cruise setting, trim the airplane, and lean the mixture. Pitch, power, and trim, in that order. The pilot may accomplish the entire cruise set up and then use the checklist to confirm that all necessary tasks have been accomplished but the cruise checklist should be consulted. The entire process should be accomplished quickly and surely, with attention focused almost exclusively outside the airplane and without excessive tinkering with power settings or trim. Some use of trim to reduce control forces as the aircraft accelerates is acceptable, but unnecessary, and the student should understand that the trim cannot be finally established until both the speed and power settings have stabilized. Ideally, the result should be flight at the intended altitude plus or minus one hundred feet at a constant airspeed with the aircraft appropriately trimmed, but we are interested primarily in whether the pilot has a concept of the proper cruise attitude, can maintain control of the aircraft without excessive gyrations, can accomplish the necessary tasks while maintaining orientation and traffic awareness, and has general command of the aircraft.

Steep turns should be performed as expected for the private pilot checkride. As mentioned above, the club does not require their completion to PTS standards – but the student pilot should know the difference. As a check pilot, I do not want to see a student losing three hundred feet in a steep turn, apparently unaware. I do expect the pilot to know how to prepare for and fly the maneuver, what visual references to look for, and how to recognize deviations from the acceptable parameters and make appropriate corrections. I am more interested in stability than precision. I want to see a smooth entry and a relaxed maneuver with attention given to visual reference and the orientation of the airplane, even if the altitude deviates somewhat. I am not impressed by the student who fixates on the instruments and hammers the airplane around, even if the altitude deviations are small. I expect this maneuver to be a visual maneuver, with only occasional reference to the heading indicator, altimeter and VSI. Although the heading indicator may be a useful aid, particularly when visibility is less than ideal, I would prefer for the pilot to use a visual landmark on which to begin and end the turn. I would rather not see the pilot trim in the steep turn. I want him to be aware of the increased angle of attack with which he is increasing lift – that angle of attack has implications. I am not, however, dogmatic about trim.

The spiral recovery is an important part of training for the steep turn and a crucial test of the presolo flight. The club must be assured that this pilot, when practicing steep turns solo or when maneuvering the airplane, will not react to a developing spiral with an instinctive clutch at the yoke. I will put the airplane into a pronounced spiral and ask the pilot to recover and I expect to see him 1) reduce power, 2) level the wings using coordinated controls, and 3) recover to level flight. I am sufficiently interested in observing this recovery that I am not unhappy when a presolo steep turn decays into a spiral. I know that, even though a presolo pilot may perform these maneuvers splendidly on a given day, he will inevitably have episodes of ineptitude and I want to know how he will react.

Slow flight is one of the few maneuvers that I may ask the presolo student to perform somewhat differently. I will usually ask him to slow the airplane down in a clean configuration (flaps retracted) initially. I will choose a speed appropriate to the conditions that prevail and ask him to maintain airspeed, heading, and altitude for a minute or two, at least long enough to ascertain that that he understands how to stabilize the airplane in slow flight. I hope to see the pilot using the necessary rudder input to avoid yawing of the airplane – on takeoff and in climbs I often see student pilots overcoming the left-turning forces by banking to the right rather than using right rudder. I will look for sufficient and timely right rudder, reasonable control of the airspeed with angle of attack, and reasonable control of altitude with power. I am not so much looking for quantifiable standards as I am trying to ascertain whether the student understands how to achieve these standards. The aerodynamic lesson of slow flight seems to me to be that we can get away in cruise flight with misunderstanding the effects of angle of attack and power – although it makes for crude, inelegant flying – but in slow flight such a misunderstanding can be fatal. Once we have ascertained the pilot’s basic understanding of these principles, I will ask for some simple turns to see how he or she handles the slight loss of vertical lift and the changing rudder requirements. I will then ask the pilot to deploy the flaps in stages, ultimately to full flap deployment, to see if he understands how to adjust for the resulting change in angle of attack with the change in chord line and how to retain the initial angle of attack with the change in attitude to maintain the target airspeed. This is important because it will occur on every landing approach when his attention is distracted by such necessities as finding the runway. I will then ask the pilot to climb a few hundred feet at the target airspeed in this configuration. Depending on the weight and density altitude, this may or may not be possible, but I want to see how he will react when the airplane struggles, largely in vain, to climb with full flaps. I do not want to see the pilot pitching the airplane up in an attempt to climb.

(NB: I am not much interested in the kerfuffle over the recent ACS change to avoid triggering the stall warning. I understand the principle. We must teach the student to perform according to the ACS standards. We must also teach the student to be sufficiently aware of an impending stall so as not to be terrified of it.)

As a check pilot, I am content for the pilot to perform a power-off stall in whatever fashion he is accustomed – either from slow flight at a constant altitude or from a simulated approach to landing. In either case, flaps will be deployed at least twenty degrees to better simulate the pitch attitude that might induce a stall in a landing approach. If done from slow flight, power may be at idle or at approximately 1500 RPM. If done from an approach to landing, power should be at an appropriate approach setting, such as 1500 RPM. The club’s primary concerns in this maneuver are stall recognition, proper recovery, and spin prevention. The club expects the pilot to be aware of the indications of an approaching stall (control ineffectiveness, buffet, stall horn), recognize the aerodynamic stall, recover by instinctively reducing the angle of attack, correct a spin entry with opposite rudder input, and maintain his wits throughout. The aircraft, assuming a C152, should be allowed to pitch down until the compass aligns with the horizon. Power application should follow and not precede the stall recovery and the student should understand that power, while it reduces altitude loss, is not the means of recovery. As a maneuver, I am delighted to observe a pilot who understands how to maintain coordination throughout and produce a stall with no yawing motion. If he achieves this ideal, I will compliment him and then ask for a stall that will almost certainly produce a rolling moment, because I want to see if the pilot will instinctively react with appropriate rudder to stop the yaw. I do not want to see the pilot trying to steer out of the stall with aileron. Unfortunately, from a training perspective, ailerons are more or less effective in a C152 stall – the airplane recovers so quickly and independently from the stall that the ailerons are almost immediately effective — but it is not the appropriate recovery and will not serve the pilot well in a fully-developed spin or in an airplane with less benign stall characteristics. The recovery should include a return to level flight or a climb and a timely clean up of the airplane, including flaps and carburetor heat. While a smooth and orderly maneuver, from setup to clean up is desirable, I am most interested in how the pilot manages the actual stall, in the belief that the primary purpose of the maneuver at this stage of training is as a prophylactic to protect the student from an inadvertent stall.

The power-on or departure stall will usually follow immediately upon the approach stall. It will be done clean, with at least 2000 rpm and perhaps with full climb power. The pilot should maintain coordination as the stall approaches and increase the pitch smoothly and steadily. FAR 61.87 requires recoveries from both an imminent and a full stall, and, as a check pilot, I would prefer to see a full stall, because I would hope to observe whether the pilot understands that a full stall and subsequent descent will create an immediate increase in angle of attack as the relative wind changes and will require a decisive reduction in pitch attitude. The student may be asked to execute a departure stall in a turn, particularly if every previous stall has been well-coordinated. This will usually induce a yawing stall and an opportunity to observe the pilot’s instinctive reaction – which should be to stop the yaw with opposite rudder. Recovery should be to a normal climb attitude. There seems to be somewhat of a debate in flight training as to whether stall recoveries should aspire to a minimal reduction of pitch attitude and thus a minimal loss of altitude or should aspire to a decisive, pronounced reduction of pitch while accepting if not welcoming a somewhat greater loss of altitude. I can see the merit of either philosophy, but if the pitch down is minimal the pilot should recognize and avoid any secondary stall and if the pitch down is more decisive the pilot should recognize the return of lift and not prolong the dive.

In the simulated emergency landing, we are hoping to see the pilot’s ability to fly the airplane under pressure, his ability to order priorities, and his control of the airplane’s glidepath. The pilot should immediately set the attitude that will attain and maintain the aircraft’s best glide speed. (Use the speed specified on the checklist. We are not concerned here with the niceties of best-rate vs. best-range glide.) The pilot should then select and proceed immediately toward a field. He should then proceed through a disciplined troubleshooting or restart procedure. I teach a simple flow beginning with the fuel valve and proceeding upward and leftward, though the mixture, throttle, carb heat, mags, and primer, but as a check pilot I am not dogmatic about the exact procedure. I look for two aspects of the restart procedure: the pilot should follow a disciplined, formal procedure from memory; and the pilot should also have some comprehension of the purpose of each action and what symptoms might it relieve. (What is accomplished by switching to a single magneto?) The pilot should then, time permitting, proceed through emergency communications (121.5 or other ATC frequency & 7700.) And finally, the pilot should prepare the aircraft and passengers for an off-field landing. I teach a mnemonic that I hope will help the pilot remember and order the tasks. A (airspeed) B (best field) C (cockpit checks – restart procedures) D (dialogue) and E (egress). Other instructors may teach a different process, but we should see these tasks accomplished in a timely fashion without losing orientation or control of the aircraft.

As to actually gliding the aircraft into the field, the pilot should assess the wind direction, his altitude, his distance from the field and his descent rate and circle in a disciplined fashion over the touchdown point. The pilot should circle over the touchdown point and the downwind abeam point, assessing his altitude with each cycle, and breaking off the circling maneuver when, on the downwind side of the circle, he reaches 800-1300 AGL. From that point, he will be flying a relatively familiar pattern, made more familiar by the fact that the glidepath of a 152 with flaps retracted and idle power is similar to that of a 152 with landing power and twenty degrees flaps. Height above the field, distance to the field, descent rate, and wind conditions should be constantly assessed and the pattern adjusted as necessary. Flaps should not be deployed until the field is assured and final approach should be made, if at all possible, with full flaps.

I have observed that those pilots who fly a routine, consistent circling maneuver, calculating their altitude and descent rate and working early in the maneuver to arrive at their downwind abeam position approximately 1000 AGL consistently succeed. Those pilots who improvise a different pattern each time succeed only occasionally.

In the simulated emergency landing maneuver, the student pilot should periodically clear the engine, but if he has not been trained to or forgets, the check pilot will assume this responsibility. I do not expect student pilots to be practicing this exercise solo.

On the presolo flight, the club will expect the student pilot to continue the approach until the outcome is obvious and the student will execute a go-around at its conclusion. The go-around should be executed promptly, with full power applied, carburetor heat removed, the proper pitch attitude set, right rudder as necessary and measured retraction of the flaps in increments while retaining a positive rate of climb.

Following either the simulated emergency landing or a takeoff from a runway, we will simulate an engine failure in the climb. Here, the club expects an immediate reduction in angle of attack to maintain a safe gliding airspeed and an awareness on the part of the pilot that we are unlikely to be able to return to the field or runway from which we have just departed.

I have found that orientation to the airport and pattern is one of the more difficult skills for student pilots to master. On a presolo flight, the club expects the student pilot to reasonably assess his distance and direction from the field, determine the appropriate runway, plan a descent so as to arrive at pattern altitude prior to pattern entry, and make a safe entry into the pattern. If we find ourselves on the downwind side of the field, I look for a standard 45-degree entry to the downwind leg at pattern altitude. If we find ourselves on the upwind side of the field, I can accept either flight across the field above pattern altitude and a 45-degree entry from the downwind side or a crosswind entry into the downwind. The important elements in either case are continued orientation to the field, vigilance for traffic, and compensation for wind. Radio procedures should be timely, standard, and should not detract from piloting. Whether or not the pilot requests advisories from the unicom operator, he or she should listen for other traffic and gather his own sense of its location and intentions. All too often, student pilots will tune to the CTAF and immediately call for advisories without listening for other traffic.

Downwind flight may be either at seventy knots or at cruise. In either case, the aircraft should be trimmed for seventy knots prior to initiating the pattern descent. I initially teach students to trim the airplane for level flight at seventy knots before entering the downwind because student pilots need an inordinate period to trim the aircraft. The disadvantage of course is limited forward visibility. As students attain more facility in trimming, they can delay the speed reduction until later on downwind, just prior to reducing power and initiating the descent.

The descending legs of the VFR pattern should be flown at 65 knots +/- 5 knots. The landing checklist should be accomplished prior to initiating descent. I prefer that the student pilot use the written checklist, but I am not dogmatic. Other instructors teach a consistent flow pattern to accomplish the prelanding tasks – in some cases a single flow pattern to be used for both prelanding tasks and engine-failure emergencies. Some instructors teach a right-to-left flow pattern beginning at the fuel valve; others teach a left-to-right pattern beginning at the primer or fuel gauges. The club expects a disciplined means of accomplishing pre-landing tasks and as a check pilot I want to see it used consistently prior to every landing.

Forward slips are a required presolo maneuver according to FAR 61.87 and are a useful tool for controlling the glidepath on a simulated emergency landing and on a normal approach. The most important concept to impress upon student pilots in the exercise of a forward slip is attention to the attitude of the airplane and the dire consequences of a stall while uncoordinated. On the presolo flight we are most concerned that the pilot maintain an appropriate attitude while executing the slip. If the nose of the airplane drifts upward toward the horizon, the maneuver will be deemed unsafe.

By a stabilized final, we are describing a final approach with consistent control of airspeed, glidepath, and directional control. For a normal landing, the club has standardized on a 65-knot approach speed and twenty degrees of flaps. Ten degrees of flaps should be deployed upon initiating descent from the downwind and subsequent flaps should be deployed when appropriate. Ideally, they will be deployed on the base leg, but should not be deployed by rote but rather as an informed decision based on the position relative to the runway, the rate of descent, the altitude, and the wind. Thirty degrees of flaps should not be used for normal landings. If twenty degrees of flaps will not result in a touchdown in the first third of the runway, a go around should be executed. The club has long standardized on twenty degrees of flaps for normal student-pilot landings and it is a policy that has served us well. We have chosen to bias in favor of a somewhat faster approach speed in exchange for a configuration that will allow a successful go around. The glidepath will likely be somewhat steeper than the three-degree glideslope defined by the VASI but in no case should it be more shallow and in any case it should be stable and consistent without extreme variations. Given reasonable conditions, a student pilot at this stage should be able to maintain airspeed plus or minus five knots. We have all heard, and some instructors may subscribe to, the theory that the VFR pattern should not extend beyond gliding distance from the airport in the case of an engine failure. That doesn’t particularly concern me, but there is a tendency among student pilots to fly increasingly wide patterns and long finals which should be discouraged.

I believe devoutly that stable, safe approaches lead to safe landings and consequently I am much more interested in the approach than in the landing. I would much rather see a stable, orderly approach followed by a graceless landing than a wildly vacillating approach followed by a beautiful landing. There may be considerable variation in the flare from one student and one instructor to another – some favor a more gradual roundout and flare and others a more abrupt transition to the landing flare. Either, within reason, is acceptable, although I find that student pilots attempting an extremely abrupt transition to the flare are seldom able to time it correctly and usually balloon or, worse yet, land on the nosewheel. Some instructors teach the pilot to reduce power to idle once assured of making the runway, which is an acceptable technique and a matter of style but not a technique I find helpful for student pilots. It destabilizes what had been, we hope, heretofore a stabilized approach, requiring an adjustment of pitch attitude, a change in the visual reference, and resulting in an increased vertical speed – all in the last moments of the landing approach. I find that most student pilots either allow the airplane to slow up unacceptably or balloon in the flare due to the increased vertical speed. I would prefer that the pilot maintain the stabilized approach until just prior to the roundout and flare. There is no requirement to land on the numbers – merely in the first third or so of the runway. If a stabilized approach all the way to the runway will not result in a landing in the first thousand or so feet of runway, I would prefer to see a go around.

The landing may or may not be pretty but certain elements are critical. Directional control should be evident – every student pilot lands on the left side of the runway but the landing should at least be within shouting distance of the centerline and the aircraft should be pointed more or less in the direction in which it is travelling. The main wheels should touch down first. Flat landings are fast landings which lead to directional control problems and in no case should the nose wheel touch down first. There should be no eagerness to force the nosewheel to the runway immediately after landing. A note on touch and goes We have had some debate over the years about the wisdom of touch and goes for student pilots. Touch and goes have long been a standard of flight training with the virtue of affording more landings in the relatively constrained period of a flight lesson. The advantage is simply more opportunities for approaches and landings. The disadvantages are several. There is the possibility that the student pilot will confuse the technique for a touch and go with the technique for a go-around. There is the possibility that a touch and go will result in a loss of directional control and an accident. And there is the suspicion that a touch and go does not provide sufficient practice in slowing the airplane and bringing it to a stop under control. I can respect these concerns and certainly will not encourage an instructor to teach touch and goes if he prefers otherwise. I personally find them useful and will continue to use them during dual landing practice. I will insist upon full-stop landings for student pilot solo until I am fully satisfied that the student can execute a touch and go properly. “Touch and go” is an unhelpful term for this maneuver. As a check pilot, I do not want to see a student slap the wheels on the runway (main wheels first, we hope) and immediately add power, accelerating while the airplane is skittering from side to side across the runway. If the pilot chooses to do a touch and go, I would like to see it done thusly. The landing should ideally be on the centerline, but should in any case be on the main wheels with good directional control. There should be no hurry to lower the nose wheel to the runway. Power should be reduced to idle and the airplane should be allowed to slow naturally. The airplane should be brought back to the centerline with appropriate rudder and nosewheel steering before the pilot cleans up the airplane. Flaps and carb heat should be cleaned up without the pilot becoming distracted from steering the airplane, preferably without looking inside the airplane. If the airplane wanders from the centerline during the clean up process, it should be brought back to the centerline. During this process it should be allowed to roll at idle power, without braking. Only after the airplane is cleaned up and is rolling smoothly on the centerline should power be applied. If insufficient runway remains by the time the airplane is reconfigured and brought back to the centerline under control, a full-stop should be made.

Some instructors routinely teach VOR navigation to presolo pilots; others prefer to postpone radio navigation until post-solo. In either case, the student pilot should have a sense of basic navigation skills, such as pilotage and dead reckoning. Detailed flight planning can wait until cross-country flight training, but the student pilot who is contemplating solo flight should have a general awareness of prominent local landmarks, understand where the RDU Class C airspace lies, have some disciplined means of find his way to and from our airport, and be cognizant of time and distance as he flies. On the presolo flight, I will usually ask the pilot to find his way to our practice area, be familiar with its boundaries, and be able to maintain at least basic positional awareness At the same time, I recognize that the presolo maneuvers done in rapid sequence can be disorienting and I am willing to assist with positional awareness. We would hope that any student pilot soloing away from our pattern be able to obtain navigational assistance should it become necessary to return to KTTA.

Sources of assistance would include primarily the Raleigh TRACON and secondarily FAY or GSO. Before solo flight beyond the pattern, the student pilot should know how to find the frequency for Raleigh Approach on a chart and should have practiced obtaining navigational assistance from Raleigh. Proper radio phraseology and procedures are desirable, but our primary interest is simply that the pilot will not hesitate to ask for assistance should he require it and will not let his embarrassment or any sense of intimidation discourage him from obtaining assistance earlier rather than later.

The presolo standardization flight is not a substitute for the judgment of the individual flight instructor. I do not flatter myself that, in a two-hour flight, I can better judge a student pilot’s readiness to solo than his or her flight instructor who flies with him regularly. I can only hope to confirm what the flight instructor has seen more often. The presolo standardization process is primarily a means of assuring that we as instructors are all working toward the same objectives and have similar and appropriate standards for the student pilots with whom we fly. The final decision as to when a student is ready to solo will always rest with the individual flight instructor who endorses the logbook.