The Passing Grade
The Passing Grade
Somewhere in the history of academia it was decided that if a student comprehended at least 65 or 70 percent of the course content, he or she would be considered to have “passed” the course. It did not necessarily mean that he had command of the content or that he fully understood the subject matter.
Today, our nation’s Ivy League colleges and universities scoff at the notion of admitting into their institutions high school students who merely “passed” their courses. Instead, you need to be in the top 10 percent of your high school graduating class to be considered competitive. Heck, even state-sponsored universities and most smaller private colleges look for at least an 80 to 85 average, if not better, from their incoming freshmen.
The aviation paradox!
Curiously, aviation works a bit differently. There are no incentives for achieving anything other than a passing grade on FAA administered knowledge tests. Designated Pilot Examiners (DPEs) do not issue special honors to pilot candidates who perform better than the minimum required by the Practical Test Standards (PTS).
Flight schools and the CFIs who work from them have no incentive other than to get their students through the check ride. They passed! That’s what counts.
Even pilots preparing for professional flying careers do not need to achieve anything other than a “passing” grade on their various ratings. Airline and corporate pilot applications ask only for pilot ratings achieved and number of logbook hours. Aside from personal information and some reference to formal education, airline and corporate flight departments care little how well you performed during your flight training.
The bar was set low . . . and it hasn’t moved in 65 years!
We have to look back about 65 years to find when the standard for “passing” pilot performance was established. It was shortly after America’s entry into WWII when pilot training became formalized. FDR called for hundreds of thousands of war planes to be manufactured while the Army and its affiliated civilian contractors were tasked with the job of producing pilots to fly them.
Thus was born the notion of pilot training and proficiency standards. Many of these very same standards are still with us today, despite faster and far more complex aircraft, all of which are operating in a far more sophisticated national airspace system. That’s right, many of the pilot proficiency standards have not changed in 65 years. Even today’s 40 hour rule for the private pilot certificate had its origins in the 1940s when we learned to fly in J-3 Cubs.
Don’t move the bar!
Unlike our nation’s colleges and universities who continually strive for ever-increasing academic performance, we in the aviation community lobby hard for the perpetuation of mediocrity. Our large membership organizations, backed up by hundreds of thousands of dues-paying members, steadfastly resist the notion of raising the bar. Like the fight against user fees, they take the position that if ONE increased standard is allowed, then others will follow. Where will it stop, they ask?
We individual pilots buy into this faulty logic. Rather than promoting or even supporting tougher standards of pilot performance, we vote with our membership dues to keep the bar at a comfortable level. Keep in mind that we’re talking about preserving a 65 year old standard!
The proof is in the pudding . . .
Opponents of raising the bar argue that voluntary compliance with an imaginary higher standard of pilot performance is a better way to go. They insist that we pilots are self-motivated to achieve a level of proficiency that will keep us all safe aloft.
There’s only one problem. They’re wrong. Dead wrong!
Of the slightly less than 600,000 U.S. licensed pilots, current estimates are that less than 15,000 ever attend an FAA or AOPA safety seminar. What about the other one-half million pilots? AOPA opines, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink!”
Well, that little nugget of wisdom doesn’t cut it when it comes to addressing the fact that our dismal GA fatal accident rate has been flat-lined for the past seven years.
Just how bad is it?
Let’s look at the facts. Over 65 years of conditioning have created an entire generation of pilots who, for the most part, believe that achieving a “passing” score in anything related to aviation is acceptable performance.
The sad and very sobering truth is that many of these pilots were at the top of their airmanship game the day they squeaked through their last FAA knowledge test and check ride. From that day forward, their airmanship knowledge and skills began to deteriorate! Truth be told, could YOU pass today the FAA knowledge test and check ride for the highest pilot rating you hold? Could I? I wonder!
Thus, if 70 percent is a passing score and we lose a significant portion of what we knew on check ride day, what does that say about our current level of our knowledge and proficiency as pilots? Pretty scary, huh!
Our fatal accident rate confirms this sad truth. We manage to wreck about 1,500 GA airplanes a year or about 5 per day. On average, we suffer 1 fatal wreck a day. Our fatal accident rate is 100 times worse than the airlines. The risk of flying a GA airplane is roughly the same as riding a motorcycle. This is a very sad commentary on the relative safety of general aviation flight.
Solution, you ask? Raise the bar!
Is there a solution? You bet, but it won’t be popular with AOPA and many of its dues paying members. We need to raise the bar for passing the various rating knowledge and practical tests. Here is what we should be requiring.
First, let’s stop publishing the answers to FAA knowledge tests. While NAFI (National Association of Flight Instructors) lobbied hard to have the FAA publish the answers to their knowledge tests, such action encourages rating candidates to simply memorize the answers.
Second, we must make the Private and Instrument Pilot Knowledge tests relevant to 21st century flight. Let’s include questions on realistic aeronautical decision making (ADM) and actual flight scenarios. At last look, there were more questions pertaining to ADFs than GPS on the private pilot knowledge test. You can fail all weather related questions on the instrument pilot knowledge test and still pass. Who’s minding the store here?
Third, the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) should be tightened to allow a tolerance of no more than +/- 100 feet in straight and level flight instead of the current +/- 200 feet. If a pilot candidate cannot maintain this higher standard, something is desperately wrong with either his instruction or his skills.
Fourth, the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) should require a minimum of 3 hours of flight in actual instrument conditions instead of simulated conditions as are now prescribed. Similarly, at least 10 hours of actual instrument flight should be required for the instrument rating. These changes address the fact that continued VFR flight into IFR conditions is the number one weather-related cause of all fatal accidents. Students need to see first-hand the challenges of flying solely by reference to instruments. Simulated instrument conditions are as phony as $3.00 bills.
Fifth, no person should be issued a CFI certificate until he or she has logged a minimum of 500 PIC hours. The teaching principle known as primacy of learning suggests that what we learn first lasts longest. Using inexperienced pilots to teach new pilots affords new meaning to this principle.
Sixth, no CFI-I certificate should be granted to any candidate who has not logged a minimum of 50 PIC hours in actual IFR conditions. Primacy of learning principle applies here as well.
Seventh, an annual flight review should be required for all pilots logging less than 100 PIC hours in the previous 12 months.
Sure, these tightened standards will produce an increased burden on some pilots. Such burden, however, is the price of improved flight safety.
Don’t worry . . . . raising the bar will never happen!
While logic might suggest that raising the bar will improve pilot proficiency, there are strong forces in the GA community that insist that the efficacy of any proposed change in the standard must first be proven. Like union leadership, they argue against any rule change that places a burden on their membership. And, like weak management, the FAA yields and the status quo is, again, protected.
So, we’ll continue on, business as usual. We’ll memorize some answers, barely pass the tests, bumble through the check rides, and fly off, oblivious to fact that we really haven’t achieved any degree of proficiency or mastery of the subject.
The majority of us will manage to get by without hurting ourselves or others. But there will always be those at or near the bottom of the class who will pay the ultimate price for receiving a passing grade.
Bob Miller, ATP, CFII