Flight Training - April 2013 - 38

light 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.

38 /

FLIGHTTRAINING.AOPA.ORG

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 pitchversus-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.

http://FLIGHTTRAINING.AOPA.ORG

Flight Training - April 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Flight Training - April 2013