Considering Accidents and Fatalities Data in Fixed Wing Aircraft During Instructional Flight…

Posted on by
Reply

This past week AOAP released data on aviation accidents in the 2024 Richard G. McSpadden Report, AOPA’s 34th AOPA Air Safety Institute Accident Report. While there is a great deal of information you can dig through in this report about aviation accidents, I got curious specifically about how we were doing in the instructional realm with regard to accidents, fatal accidents, and fatalities.

So, I thought I would share a few things I found as I dug deeper, and pulled some data from a few years back through now.

Overall Instructional Accidents in Non-Commercial Fixed Wing Aircraft Raw Numbers Declining Trend

When we look at the pure raw numbers of accidents that happen that include instructional activities, we see a rise and fall of numbers from year to year, but when averaged, the pure trend is downward. That being said, there are rises and falls that make that trend happen, with some numbers above the average rate over the period FY2008 through FY2024.

You can see that in this chart.

Fatal Accidents and Total Fatalities Trend Largely Flat

When we look at the pure number of fatal accidents and total fatalities in these accidents over the same period, the trend looks even flatter. You can see that in this next chart.

Does this mean we are not improving? Well, maybe, but let’s get to that in a bit.

Overall Percentage of Non-Commercial Fixed Wing Aircraft Instructional Accidents Increasing Percentage of All Non-Commercial Fixed Wing Accidents

What we are talking about here is if we look at all of the accidents that happen in non-commercial operations, so, not Part 135 or 121 operations, that happen in fixed-wing aircraft. When we look at the number of accidents in this realm that are during instructional activities, the trend looks worse.

The trend in this sector is that instructional accidents represent a greater percentage of the overall accident volume in the non-commercial fixed-wing flight operational realm. The next chart shows this and the general upward trend.

This looks worse when we put the data in this perspective.

But, I am honestly not sure what this data entirely means or what nuggets we can fully take away from it. We know a rate here, but we don’t entirely know the base number from which this is derived adjusted for flight volume.

If we postulate that flight training efforts have increased over the past few years, a factor we know from practical test volume, and if we saw a decrease in total flight hours or operations of other non-commercial fixed-wing aircraft flights (such as personal flying operations), we could be seeing a different picture. In such a state, the number of overall actual fatal accidents and/or fatalities might be increasing even yet still be an improving point if we are flying more hours. What we do know here is the pure number of accidents and fatalities. What we don’t know here is if this is a greater rate of those events per hours of flight flown. While there are some guesses at the numbers of hours of flight flown, I will tell you that I know for certain that there is no robust capture of this data in the general aviation or specifically flight training realm. Few, if any, operators are fully reporting the number of flight hours their fleets fly each year to allow for data analysis to compare to the accident rate.

Questions I would love to know more about include:

  • Is the number of fatal accidents/fatalities per hour of flight actually increasing or decreasing?
  • Is the number of fatal accidents/fatalities per number of students in training increasing or decreasing?
  • Is the fatal accidents/fatalities rate greater or less with relation to total instructional activities?
  • Are fatal accidents/fatalities more likely with less experienced CFIs? Or less experienced students?
  • I supposed I could dig deeper into each accident, and perhaps I will, but are there more fatalities on solo- or dual-flights?

This data makes me ask a lot more questions to which I don’t currently have, or am not even sure if we can derive, answers. That being said, I think they are valid data points that we should look at more in the flight training community.

I think we can surely say, though, that no matter what subset of data we look at, we would at least rather see a trend of decreasing overall fatal accidents and fatalities.

Multi-Engine Vs. Single-Engine Fatal Instructional Accidents

The report got me curious about another point, wondering how the accident rate fared when we looked at instructional accidents in multi- and single-engine aircraft. There has been some discussion and concern that our multi-engine instructor cadre is less experienced than it might have been in a historical context.

With that in mind, I grabbed data from the NTSB Aviation Investigation Search tool over the same time period and broke it out into these sectors.

What I found in a summarized data point is in this chart.

I can’t tell you if this is good, bad, or indifferent honestly. But what I will say is that one might hope that by the time people are getting instruction in a multi-engine aircraft, they and the instructor are typically a little more experienced. It would seem to me that any accident rate, anecdotally, should be lower in this realm of flight training.

You can see the entire list and the aircraft makes and models, along with the NTSB case number on each of these if you want to dig deeper in a PDF list and the data spreadsheet I did by clicking here if you want.

I do find it interesting that a larger percentage of the fatal accidents in multi-engine training aircraft seem to be more “legacy” aircraft than the more modern newer aircraft used in some of the larger training operations. A deeper dive into each of these accidents could give us more detail. Are they harder to maintain and encounter more mechanical issues? Are they used in, well, lower-budget training operations and have less experienced instructors? I don’t honestly know. But if anyone has the time and wants to go dig through each of these accidents and summarize what they find, I would love to know more if there is anything we can learn for the training environment.

Data collected:

Just to share where the data in the graphic charts above came from, if you want to see the raw numbers, here is a table chart that you can refer to for more information. I grabbed the data in each particular AOPA safety report year to generate this content.

Hope you find this data interesting as I did and I always welcome input and insights if you have more to share!

 

 

[More] CFI Related Regulations Changes You Might Want to Know About

Posted on by
Reply

Ok, so most people have seen the change about CFI renewal/expiration requirements already, but the regulation change that did that also had some other things you might want to know about as a CFI. Or if you train CFIs. So, here are a couple of other things from this regulation change, and then a couple of other aviation legal interpretations changes that affect CFI land.

If you want to see where this comes from, you can find the final FAA rule that was published by clicking here. The rule becomes effective December 1, 2024.

Instructor Qualifications for Training Initial Flight Instructor Applicants (§ 61.195(h); § 141.11; Part 141, Appendix K)

The new “rule revises the qualification requirements for flight instructors seeking to train initial flight instructor applicants by adding two additional methods.”

“Section 61.195(h) contains the qualification requirements for flight instructors seeking to instruct initial flight instructor applicants. The NPRM proposed to restructure § 61.195(h)(2) to contain general qualifications for all flight instructors providing flight training to initial applicants for a flight instructor certificate, including flight instructors providing training under FAA-approved courses. This final rule retains these general requirements, which include the requirement for the flight instructor to meet the eligibility requirements of § 61.183 and hold the appropriate flight instructor certificate and rating.”

BUT…

There are three new different qualification options now available for those who might train initial CFI applicants.

“The first option retains the existing requirements of current § 61.195(h)(2)(iii), (iv) and (v), which include the requirements for the flight instructor to have held the flight instructor certificate for at least 24 calendar months and to have given at least 200 hours of flight training as a flight instructor for training in preparation for an airplane, rotorcraft, or powered-lift rating (or 80 hours of flight training if training in preparation for a glider rating). This option is retained as § 61.195(h)(2)(i)(A) and (B).”

“The second qualification option modifies the previous § 61.195(h)(3). Section 61.195(h)(2)(ii) now requires a flight instructor to have trained and endorsed, in the preceding 24 calendar months, at least five applicants for a practical test for a pilot certificate or rating, and at least 80 percent of those applicants must have passed that test on their first attempt. This will allow more flight instructors to exercise this qualification option as compared to the similar option previously available under § 61.195(h)(3).

This allows CFIs who have less than 2-years of experience as a CFI, but has had a good pass rate with their students, at least 80%, to be eligible to train initial CFIs at an earlier time.

“For the third qualification, this final rule adds a new qualification method in § 61.195(h)(2)(iii). This option requires a flight instructor to have graduated from an FAA-approved flight instructor enhanced qualification training program (FIEQTP). Additionally, they must have given at least 200 hours of flight training as a flight instructor for training in preparation for an airplane, rotorcraft, or powered-lift rating (or 80 hours of flight training if in preparation for a glider rating) before being eligible to complete the FIEQTP.”

This matches up with the new AC 61-145 Flight Instructor Enhanced Qualification Training Program (FIEQTP). (https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1042632)

This new AC sets forth the process where the FAA may approve a provider’s development of an initial CFI training program and utilize instructors that do not meet traditional initial CFI training requirements. It is a structured program though that must be approved.

These changes offer more flexibility when it comes to who is eligible to train new CFIs.

CFIs Must be Landings Current When Conducting Training as PIC

In the past, the FAA had interpreted the requirement to be “landings current” under 14 CFR § 61.57 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.57) as not applicable to CFIs when conducting instruction, the logic being that the student was not a “passenger.” This has been rescinded by the FAA.

In the final fule Public Aircraft Logging of Flight Time, Training in Certain Aircraft Holding Special Airworthiness Certificates, and Flight Instructor Privileges the FAA makes this change. (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/02/2024-22009/public-aircraft-logging-of-flight-time-training-in-certain-aircraft-holding-special-airworthiness) 

In this document, it is noted that, “The FAA had previously issued legal interpretations indicating certain operations related to obtaining recent flight experience with an instructor on board are already permissible under existing regulations, notwithstanding the prohibition on passenger-carrying flights. The FAA determined the plain text of its regulations did not support the conclusions in these interpretations.”

It is further highlighted in the document that:

“Although the FAA has not previously defined “passenger” in regulation, the NPRM analyzed the FAA’s historical interpretation of the term. Previous FAA legal interpretations have stated that a flight instructor and a person receiving flight training are not considered passengers to one another. However, the NPRM concluded that those FAA legal interpretations had no regulatory basis to assert such a position, and the FAA has since rescinded those interpretations. While the NPRM did not assert that a flight instructor and a person receiving flight training are not passengers to one another, it sought to clarify when certain operations involving such persons may be conducted.”

It goes on to indicate,

“Section 61.57 contains recent flight experience requirements to maintain privileges to act as PIC under certain scenarios, including requirements to complete takeoffs and landings to continue to act as PIC of a flight that is carrying passengers. The FAA proposed to add § 61.57(e)(5) to codify an exception that, in certain circumstances, would enable a person receiving flight training to act as PIC, even if that person does not meet the recent flight experience requirements for carrying passengers under § 61.57(a) or (b). This person would be required to meet all other requirements to act as PIC, except for the recent flight experience requirements of § 61.57(a) or (b), and only the authorized instructor and person receiving training could be on board the aircraft. The FAA proposed the change in response to a disparity created between several legal interpretations [31] that concluded, unsupported by the regulations, that a flight instructor and a person receiving flight training are not considered passengers to one another. This final rule adds the definition of “passenger” and addresses how those legal interpretations relate to the requirements of § 61.57”

So what’s the gist?

Either the CFI must meet takeoff and landing currency requirements in the category and class of aircraft being operated. If the CFI does not have this currency, then they are not able to be the PIC of the flight. This could be the case if someone was receiving instruction and they were able to be the PIC. This could happen such as a commercial student who was able to be the PIC of the aircraft, or an individual receiving a flight review, but it would be not possible for a CFI who was taking out a student pilot for their first night flight experience in training for example. The best practice is for a CFI to be takeoff and landing current for the day or night operations in the category and class of aircraft in which they will be instructing.

Updated ASA Guide to the Flight Review Now Available!

Posted on by
Reply

ASA has now released the Ninth Edition of the Multi-Engine Oral Exam Guide. I had the fortune to have the opportunity to work with ASA updating this, and hope you find it useful!

This ninth edition of the Guide to the Flight Review Oral Exam Guide is an excellent study tool for pilots and instructors alike when gearing up for a Flight Review or as a general refresher. This guide lists questions with succinct answers supported with FAA references to help rusty pilots refresh their knowledge, and to help instructors follow compliance with the FAA steps and requirements while conducting a flight review.

The book covers pilot privileges and limitations, aircraft maintenance, drone operations, weather, aerodynamics, aircraft performance, navigation, communications, regulations, airspace, airport operations, risk management, system operations and malfunctions, human factors, and more. Readers will also find a sample written exercise, a table summarizing maneuvers and Airman Certification Standard (ACS) tolerances, as well as appendices with checklists, personal minimums, and an over-the-counter medications reference

Visit https://asa2fly.com/guide-to-the-flight-review-ninth-edition/ to get your copy today!

I can’t say thanks enough the team at ASA for all their help and the opportunity to continue working with this book series.

Updated ACs CFIs Should Know About (Endorsements, IPCs and Flight Reviews, Wings Program, and more…)

Posted on by

The FAA has released a number of new advisory circulars that pilots, and especially CFIs and CFI candidates might find worthy of note.

Here are a few of them:

AC 61-65J – Certification: Pilots and Flight and Ground Instructors
This is the AC that documents and provides guidance on endorsements for CFIs.

AC 61-98E Currency Requirements and Guidance for the Flight Review and Instrument Proficiency Check
This AC provides best practices and guidance for the conduct of flight reviews and IPCs.

AC 91-91K WINGS—Pilot Proficiency Program
This is AC provides information about the use of the FAA Wings proficiency program.

AC 61-145 Flight Instructor Enhanced Qualification Training Program (FIEQTP)
This AC will be relevant to the new ability for some programs to provide training to initial CFI candidates with instructors who do not meet the traditional two-year CFI requirement and have had specific training. This is a new AC.