Teaching the Importance of Knowing How to Use the Aircraft’s Audio Panel

Posted on by

I sat there on the practical test while the applicant fumbled, trying to figure out why “the radios didn’t work.”

Sigh.

It was pretty obvious to me, but it certainly wasn’t to them. To some degree, it was their fault. But it was also certainly the fault of the training they had received that had never introduced to them how to use a simple yet critical component of the avionics package in their aircraft.

The audio panel.

Most general aviation aircraft are equipped with an audio control panel that allows pilots to manage communication and navigation radios. Audio panels commonly include the following functions:

  • Power: The ability to turn the power on or off to the audio panel. Frequently co-functionally located with the volume control. Turned all the way down and past a “click” will commonly mean off for the entire system.
  • Volume: The ability to control radio volume for what the pilot and/or passenger and crew will hear
  • Communications Selector – The ability to switch audio in and transmission between communications radios (if equipped with multiple; most planes have two)
  • Navigation audio selector: Used to monitor radio frequencies to identify frequencies or potentially hear the transmission of weather information or ATC communications over remote frequency outlets.
  • Intercom controls: Frequently offering isolation of pilot and crew from passenger audio, volume, squelch control, etc.
  • Marker beacon controls:  For instrument approaches these allow a pilot to toggle audio identification of marker beacon audio on or off
  • Music, Bluetooth or auxiliary audio inputs: These are more common in modern panels for additional functionality such as input of music or other input devices.

As flight instructors, we emphasize critical aspects of flying: aerodynamics, navigation, emergency procedures, and radio communication. However, one often overlooked component of cockpit management is the aircraft’s audio panel. Proper use of the audio panel ensures clear communication with Air Traffic Control (ATC), other aircraft, and passengers. A pilot who does not understand how to operate this system efficiently can experience confusion, missed instructions, and potentially hazardous situations. Teaching students to master the audio panel early in their training builds confidence and enhances flight safety.

Frequently when I am doing practical tests I find applicants don’t know how to fully, or even partially use these systems. They are used to the settings being pre-set-up for them, never changing, or just leave it on one or two things because they don’t know how to change the configurations or what they mean.

It can be critically helpful to fully understand these systems to properly conduct flight operations.

When I find an instrument student who doesn’t know how to get audio on a navigation radio, it is a pretty clear indication that they have no idea how to identify a VOR or localizer frequency.

If a student has no idea how to monitor audio on a second com radio, potentially even making sure that the radio is at a lower volume than their primary selected radio, it is an indication that they will have to leave an assigned frequency to listen to weather reports or if they wanted to contact Unicom, flight service, or any other frequency while still monitoring an assigned frequency. Hopefully, if they did that, they would at least be smart enough to let ATC know they were leaving for a moment and would be back, but frequently I find they don’t, and it means they might miss communications in the interim.

The ability to handle music input from a corded input or a Bluetooth connection is an obvious challenge if it becomes a distraction. One might argue that these such connections should not be used during critical phases of flight, or during training operations, but frequently they are and pilots don’t know how to silence or minimize them through their audio panel.

Marker beacons seem to be more of a mystery in general any more than a lack of just understanding how to handle the audio. Many pilots with whom I have flown have no idea why there are even blinking lights for the “O”, “M”, and “I”, let alone that if they unmute the audio for the marker beacon that they will correspond to overflying one of these markers. Even more confusing for many pilots seems to be that “darn beeping sound” sometimes as I get near airports. This happens when someone has unmuted the marker function and they have no idea what this is or how to mute it again.

I could probably go on, but I think you see the challenges we have here as instructors are forgetting to focus on the audio panel as a part of their avionics training efforts.

Each aircraft may have slightly different models and each may have some specific operational knowledge needed, but the general functions are the same across most of the common models. If we teach these, they will be more understandable to our students and improve safety.

Why Audio Panel Proficiency is Crucial

Ensuring Clear Communication with ATC – ATC instructions are essential for safe navigation, especially in controlled airspace. A pilot who does not correctly manage the audio panel may transmit on the wrong frequency, fail to hear ATC instructions, or inadvertently block transmissions. Teaching students to verify and actively manage their selected frequencies prevents confusion and ensures compliance with ATC directives. It can also be important for a pilot to be able to mute their passengers at critical times to limit distractions.

Improving Situational Awareness – Sometimes pilots need to monitor multiple radio frequencies, including ATC, weather advisories, and local traffic. Proper use of the audio panel allows them to isolate specific frequencies or listen to multiple channels simultaneously. This skill is particularly useful during busy operations such as approaching controlled airports or navigating high-traffic airspace.

Managing Cockpit Workload – An overloaded cockpit can lead to mistakes. If students struggle to use the audio panel, they may spend excessive time adjusting controls rather than focusing on flying the aircraft. Teaching students efficient audio panel use—such as quick frequency switching and intercom management—reduces their cognitive load, allowing them to focus on more critical tasks.

Enhancing Communication in Multi-Crew Operations – In more advanced flight training and professional aviation careers, pilots must communicate effectively in multi-crew environments. The ability to manage intercom settings, isolate communications, and prioritize critical transmissions fosters clear and professional cockpit communication.

Ensuring Passenger and Crew Comfort – For flight instructors and commercial pilots, the audio panel is a key tool for managing passenger communication. A well-trained pilot can quickly adjust intercom settings to ensure clear communication without unnecessary distractions.

How to Teach Audio Panel Proficiency

Ground Training and Explanation

Before students interact with the audio panel in flight, provide a detailed ground lesson covering:

  • The purpose and function of each control.
  • The difference between COM1 and COM2 usage.
  • How to monitor navigation frequencies
  • How to properly set up and verify frequencies before flight.
  • The role of the intercom system and how to adjust volume settings.
  • Troubleshooting common audio issues.

Use a cockpit poster, training simulator, or sitting in the aircraft without it running can allow a CFI and their student to familiarize themselves with the unit. Obviously, supplemental manuals for the audio panel should be shared with the student. Encourage students to verbalize their actions, reinforcing their understanding.

Pre-Flight Checks and Setup

Integrate audio panel management into the pre-flight checklist. Before starting the engine, students should:

  • Verify the correct communication and navigation frequencies.
  • Test the intercom and passenger headset settings.
  • Check audio panel power and volume settings.
  • Ensure active frequency selection aligns with their intended communication needs.

Encouraging these habits early fosters a routine that carries into their solo and advanced training.

In-Flight Practice Scenarios

During flight lessons, create real-world scenarios that require students to manage the audio panel effectively. Examples include:

  • Switching between COM1 and COM2 when transitioning from ATIS to ground control.
  • Adjusting intercom settings to reduce background noise in a high-workload environment.
  • Simulating an audio failure and teaching troubleshooting techniques.
  • Monitoring multiple frequencies, such as listening to a CTAF while receiving weather advisories.
  • Having your student contact flight service on a second radio (this will also show them how to do this in general!)
  • Isolating crew communications in simulated emergencies.

Emergency Audio Panel Training

Audio panel malfunctions are rare but possible. Teach students emergency troubleshooting, including:

  • Switching to an alternate COM radio.
  • Identifying if the headset, push-to-talk button, or panel is malfunctioning.
  • Using a backup hand microphone with the system if their headset or transmit buttons are not functioning

The aircraft audio panel is an essential yet often underemphasized component of cockpit management. By systematically teaching its functions, importance, and real-world applications, flight instructors prepare students for effective and safe communication in all flight environments. A pilot proficient in audio panel management not only enhances their own safety but also contributes to a more structured and efficient airspace. Make audio panel training a priority to ensure your students develop strong communication habits that will serve them throughout their aviation careers.

Oh, I almost forgot to tell you about how the practical test applicant managed after his initial troubles.

There was nothing wrong with the aircraft communications radios. The problem was simple, the previous pilot had actually turned the audio panel off for some reason.

Having never been taught anything about the audio panel beyond volume and switching between com 1 and com 2, the pilot had no idea you could even turn it off. It had just always worked for him before.

His response after a couple of minutes of trying to figure it out was to say, “Well, I think it has to be broken and we will need to call maintenance to fix it.”

Sigh. Again.

I asked, “Are you sure?”

He paused, confused, and obviously not sure.

This was a practical test, something during which you are supposed to be familiar with your aircraft’s systems and operations.

After a slightly awkward pause I said, “If it is a legitimate maintenance issue, I understand the need to call maintenance. However, if it is a pilot performance problem, due to lack of proficiency and I can solve it instead that is a demonstration of lack of meeting the ACS standards for knowledge of systems in the aircraft.”

He paused some more. And decided to try a little bit more, “playing with buttons and knobs” we will call it.

A little stroke of luck happened and he happened to push in the volume knob instead of just turning it, which happened to turn the audio panel on and bring it to life. His relief was obvious.

We proceeded from there into the rest of the test. Which, unfortunately, ended up unsuccessful. Honestly, it wasn’t as much because I don’t think he had the ability to do the rest of the flight properly, but because by that time he was so rattled that he got himself behind the rest of the task demonstrations. He was so rattled from that start that it finally caught up in misprogramming other actions in the gps system on the first approach we set up. 

It all stemmed from the beginning of the activity when lack of systems knowledge started the path to failure moving. If this had been a flight in normal operations, not a practical test, I don’t know how it would have gone. He might have just called maintenance and they would have come down and fixed it, by turning it on for him, and he would have felt embarrassed. It might also have been the catalyst of a failure to manage systems in a real-world situation that resulted in worse outcomes. These things may sound like small things to address as a CFI, the audio panel, but they integrate into the rest of the operations our students conduct. Failing to properly do one thing can be the first step down the path to an unsuccessful flight operation. Give your students the skills to avoid taking that first step in the wrong direction, on a checkride, or in a real-world flight operation.

Why Pairing Low-Time Instructors with Low-Time Pilots Adds Risk to Training and How to Mitigate the Risk

Posted on by

In a system where flight training providers bear immense responsibility for ensuring safety, Certified Flight Instructors (CFIs) are a critical component of the system, guiding aspiring pilots through the complexities of flying. The common practice in many flight schools—pairing newly minted, low-time CFIs with beginner students—can inadvertently heighten risks. Low-time instructors, often fresh out of their own training with just 250-300 total flight hours, may lack the nuanced judgment needed to handle novices who are themselves grappling with basic controls. 

The critical nature of flight training means that CFIs must sometimes make split-second decisions. The CFI’s decision can turn a botched maneuver into a safe recovery or turn an unsafe landing into a go-around or a safe landing. Experience can be a critical factor in a CFI’s ability to see a bad situation developing. 

An argument can be made that to mitigate these dangers, flight schools could strategically pair newer CFIs with more experienced students, such as those pursuing commercial pilot certificates or flying with students who have already soloed and are doing cross-country experience, night experience, or preparing for a practical test. This allows CFIs to build expertise in a lower-risk environment before transitioning to initial, or primary, students. 

The Inherent Risks of Pairing Inexperienced Instructors with Novice Students

Flight training is inherently risky, as evidenced by general aviation (GA) safety statistics. Instructional flights, which make up a significant portion of GA activity, are not immune. In fact, accidents during flight instruction often stem from a combination of human factors, with pilot error accounting for about 69% of all GA mishaps. When both the instructor and student are low-time—meaning the CFI has limited hours beyond certification and the student is at the private pilot stage or earlier—these risks amplify.

Low-time CFIs typically enter the field after accumulating the minimum required hours: 250 for a commercial certificate and additional time for the CFI rating. They are proficient pilots but often inexperienced teachers. Teaching beginners requires not just flying skills but also the ability to anticipate errors, manage stress, and intervene swiftly in emergencies. Novice students, with zero to 40 hours of experience, are prone to basic mistakes, such as improper fuel checks, neglecting weight and balance calculations, or misjudging density altitude—oversights that can lead to catastrophic outcomes. A low-time CFI might not yet have the “at-the-ready” instincts to catch these in time, especially if they’re still refining their own risk assessment abilities.

Another layer of risk arises from the psychological dynamics. New CFIs might hesitate to assert authority or overcorrect, fearing they appear inexperienced. Inexperienced students can become overwhelmed, which can lead to panic in critical moments. Pairing two novices essentially doubles the learning curve, creating a feedback loop where errors go uncorrected longer, potentially escalating minor issues into emergencies. Research shows that accident rates for pilots rise early in their careers before declining with accumulated experience, a pattern that applies to instructors as well. 

The Advantages of Starting New CFIs with Advanced Students

To counter these risks, flight schools might choose to prioritize assigning newer CFIs to students at more advanced stages, such as those training for commercial pilot certificates. Commercial students already hold private pilot certificates and have 100-200 hours of flight experience, making them more capable of handling the aircraft independently and less likely to deviate significantly from safe flight conditions. This setup allows the CFI to focus on instructional techniques rather than constant vigilance over basic flight control.

Advanced students are less likely to make rudimentary errors that could endanger the flight, giving the new CFI a buffer to develop teaching skills. Starting fresh CFIs with certificated pilots—such as those undergoing flight reviews or pursuing advanced training might be a good idea because those pilots already have developed base skills and poficiencies For instance, commercial training involves complex maneuvers like chandelles, lazy eights, and multi-engine operations, which require the CFI to demonstrate expertise but in a context where the student can contribute meaningfully to risk management.

Building experience this way also boosts the CFI’s confidence and competence. Lessons learned from early hours as a new instructor include adapting to individual student needs and refining communication skills honed more effectively with cooperative, experienced learners. Advanced students can provide constructive feedback, helping the CFI identify blind spots without the pressure of managing a complete novice. This phased entry reduces the instructor’s own error rate, as they accumulate hours in a supportive environment. Furthermore, it mitigates burnout; teaching beginners demands constant energy for motivation and correction, whereas advanced sessions allow for deeper discussions on topics like aviation regulations and decision-making.

From a school perspective, this strategy improves overall training quality. By reserving seasoned CFIs for primary students—who need that “at-the-ready” expertise—resources are allocated efficiently. It also addresses the unintended consequences of rushed instructor progression, such as high turnover, which can disrupt student continuity and elevate risks. In essence, starting with commercial students acts as a mentorship-by-proxy, where the student’s prior knowledge supports the instructor’s growth.

Transitioning to Primary Students: A Structured Path to Reduce Risk

Once a new CFI has gained sufficient experience—say, 200-500 dual-given hours with advanced learners—flight schools could facilitate a smooth transition to working with initial students. This isn’t an abrupt shift but a deliberate process involving evaluation, mentoring, and ongoing oversight.

Criteria for transition might include demonstrated proficiency in risk management, as outlined in FAA handbooks on teaching practical risk mitigation during instruction. Schools can implement checkpoints, such as simulated lessons with chief instructors or peer reviews, to ensure readiness. Mentoring programs pair transitioning CFIs with veterans for co-teaching sessions, allowing real-time guidance on handling beginners’ unique challenges, like overcoming fears or mastering basic maneuvers.

This graduated approach directly reduces risk. While advanced training paradoxically carries higher accident rates due to complex maneuvers (greater than primary instruction in some analyses), the overall instructional fatality risk remains lower than non-instructional flights. By ensuring CFIs enter primary training with honed skills, schools minimize the amplification of risks when inexperience meets novelty. Scenario-based training, emphasized by the FAA, can be integrated here to teach both instructors and students how to manage real-world hazards.

Broader Implications for Aviation Safety

Adopting this model contributes to broader improvements in GA safety. With accident rates influenced heavily by experience levels—rising early and falling as hours accumulate—structured instructor development can break the cycle of early-career mishaps. It also aligns with industry efforts to reduce fatalities through better training paradigms. Ultimately, safer training produces better pilots, lowering the percentage of accidents attributed to pilot error across aviation.

If you are a flight training provider, perhaps consider giving this a try if you aren’t already doing so. This might be a strategic shift in how a flight training provider assigns their CFIs students. It might mean pairing newly certificated CFIs with commercial students and transitioning methodically to beginners to create a new path to risk mitigation. By adopting this phased approach, training providers can enhance safety, potentially reduce accident and incident rates, and foster better-prepared pilots and instructors alike.

FAA Notice Indicates FAA Chart Users Guide Will NOT be Discontinued

Posted on by

The FAA had previoulsy indicated it was going to discontinue the FAA Chart Users Guide, but in a FAA Notice issued on August 13, 2025 the FAA noted that it would not discontinue the guide now, but that:

“The FAA will continue to publish the Aeronautical Chart Users Guide. However, beginning August 7, 2025, updates will no longer follow the regular 56-day charting schedule. Instead, revisions will be made on an as-needed basis to reflect changes or corrections.”

You can find this notice at:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/safety_alerts/media/VIS_25-05_CN_CUG_Chart_Publication_Schedule.pdf

You can get the most current version of the FAA Charts User’s Guide at:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/aero_guide/

Carburetor Icing: The Hidden Hazard Many General Aviation Pilots Forget About

Posted on by

As general aviation pilots, we often associate icing with winter’s chill—frozen runways, frosty wings, and the need for de-icing equipment. But what if I told you that one of the most insidious forms of icing can strike on a balmy summer day, when the sun is shining and temperatures are soaring? Carburetor icing, often dismissed as a cold-weather problem, is actually a year-round threat, and it’s particularly sneaky during the warmer months. In this blog post, we’ll dive deep into the concerns surrounding carburetor icing, drawing directly from a insightful one-pager chart produced by the FAASTeam (Federal Aviation Administration Safety Team). This chart, titled “Carburetor Icing: A Summertime Threat!”, serves as a vital tool for pilots to assess and mitigate risks. By understanding how to use it, you can stay ahead of this potentially engine-killing phenomenon and ensure safer flights.

Understanding Carburetor Icing: The Science Behind the Freeze

To appreciate the dangers, let’s start with the basics. Carburetor icing occurs in piston-engine aircraft equipped with carburetors, where fuel is mixed with air before entering the engine. The process involves the Venturi effect: as air flows through the narrow throat of the carburetor, its speed increases, causing a drop in pressure and temperature. This cooling can be dramatic—up to 70°F below ambient temperatures in some cases. When moist air is present, water vapor condenses and freezes on the carburetor’s internal surfaces, like the throttle valve or venturi walls.

The result? Restricted airflow, an overly rich fuel mixture, and a gradual or sudden loss of engine power. In mild cases, you might notice rough running or a slight RPM drop. In severe scenarios, it can lead to complete engine failure, forcing an emergency landing. According to FAA data, carburetor icing has been implicated in numerous accidents, often because pilots don’t recognize the signs early enough. It’s not just a nuisance; it’s a safety hazard that can turn a routine flight into a life-threatening situation.

What makes it especially concerning for general aviation (GA) pilots is its unpredictability. Unlike structural icing, which requires visible moisture like clouds, carburetor icing can form in clear air. It’s most common in aircraft without fuel injection systems, such as many Cessna 172s, Piper Cherokees, or older trainers. GA pilots, who often fly at lower altitudes and in varying weather, are particularly vulnerable. And here’s the kicker: while we think of icing in sub-freezing conditions, the FAASTeam chart highlights that it can happen even when outside air temperatures (OAT) reach 100°F, as long as humidity is present.

Why Summer Poses a Unique Risk

Summer flying evokes images of blue skies and smooth air, but the season’s high humidity levels create prime conditions for carburetor icing. The chart provides specific averages for summer in Ohio: temperatures ranging from 65°F to 95°F (averaging 75°F), dew points from 60°F to 78°F, and relative humidity (RH) often hitting 80% to 100%. These conditions align perfectly with icing probabilities.

The chart explains that carburetor ice is most likely below 70°F OAT and above 80% RH, but due to the carburetor’s internal cooling, it can occur at higher temperatures and lower humidities—down to 50% RH at 100°F. In humid summer environments, like those in the Midwest or Southeast U.S., pilots might encounter icing during takeoff, climb, or descent, especially at reduced power settings like glide or cruise. Imagine cruising at 75°F with 90% RH: the air feels muggy, but your engine could be silently accumulating ice.

For GA pilots, this is alarming because summer flights often involve recreational outings, cross-countries, or training in variable weather. A power loss at low altitude, say during approach, leaves little room for recovery. Historical incidents, such as a 2018 NTSB report on a Cessna 150 that experienced carb icing on a warm, humid day leading to a forced landing, underscore the risk. Without vigilance, what starts as a minor RPM fluctuation can escalate quickly.

Decoding the FAASTeam Chart: Your Visual Guide to Icing Risks

Now, let’s turn to the heart of this post: the FAASTeam chart itself. This one-pager is a graphical representation designed for quick reference, making it an essential pre-flight tool. The chart plots ambient temperature (°F) on the x-axis (from 0°F to 110°F) against dew point (°F) on the y-axis (from 0°F to 100°F), but it’s effectively a proxy for relative humidity, as dew point correlates closely with moisture content.

Color-coded zones indicate icing severity:

  • Blue Zone: Moderate icing at glide and cruise power. This is the broadest area, showing where ice can form under normal operations.
  • Green Zone: Serious icing at glide power. Glide phases, like descents, especially during pattern work, are riskier due to lower engine heat.
  • Orange Zone: Serious icing at cruise power. Cruise settings can still allow rapid buildup.
  • Red Zone: Icing specific to pressure-type carburetors, which are less common but still relevant for certain aircraft.

A yellow arrow points to the “Icing (glide and cruise power)” label, emphasizing common scenarios. There’s also a star marker highlighting typical summer conditions in Ohio, right in the heart of the high-risk zones.

Below the graph, explanatory text reinforces key points: “Carburetor ice is most likely to occur when temperatures are below 70°F and the relative humidity is above 80%.” It notes the cooling effect and stresses immediate action upon power loss—apply full carburetor heat, even if it causes temporary roughness.

This chart isn’t just pretty colors; it’s a predictive tool. By cross-referencing current weather data (OAT and dew point or RH), pilots can gauge risk levels before takeoff. Try doing this with METAR reports at your local airport during varied temperatures and dewpoints.

How to Use the Chart to Avoid Carburetor Icing

The real power of this chart lies in its practical application for GA pilots. Here’s a step-by-step guide to integrating it into your flying routine:

  1. Pre-Flight Weather Check: Before every flight, obtain METARs, TAFs, or forecasts from sources like Aviation Weather Center (AWC). Note the OAT, dew point, and calculate RH if needed (using online calculators or apps). Plot these on the chart mentally or physically. For example, if OAT is 80°F and dew point is 70°F (roughly 70% RH), you’re edging into the blue zone—moderate risk.
  2. Assess Flight Phases: The chart differentiates by power settings. During glide (e.g., landing approach), risks spike in the green zone due to cooler engine temps. At cruise, watch the orange areas. Adjust your plan: If conditions fall in high-risk zones, consider delaying takeoff or routing to drier areas.
  3. In-Flight Monitoring: Carry a printed copy or digital version in your flight bag. Monitor engine instruments for signs like unexplained RPM drops, manifold pressure changes, or rough running. If you’re in the chart’s risk areas, apply partial carb heat prophylactically during descent or in humid air.
  4. Mitigation Strategies: The chart advises: Upon noticing power loss, apply full carb heat immediately. This bypasses the carburetor with warmer air from the exhaust, melting ice. Resist turning it off prematurely, even if the engine runs rough initially—it needs time to clear. The text warns: “The pilot must resist the temptation to decrease the carburetor heat usage. Carburetor heat must remain in the full-hot position until normal power returns.”
  5. Examples from Real Scenarios: Take the Ohio summer averages on the chart (75°F OAT, 60-78°F dew point, 80-100% RH). Plotting this puts you squarely in the serious icing zones for glide power. A pilot departing Columbus on a humid morning might experience icing during initial climb. By consulting the chart, they could apply carb heat early, avoiding trouble. Contrast this with a dry desert flight at 100°F and 20% RH—low risk, per the chart.

Incorporate this into your personal minimums. For student pilots, review it during ground school; for experienced flyers, use it for recurrent training. CFIs, use it with your students to improve their understanding of the risks..

Train for recognition.

Wrapping Up: Stay Vigilant, Fly Safe

Carburetor icing isn’t just a winter woe—it’s a summertime saboteur that demands respect from every GA pilot. This recent FAASTeam chart demystifies the threat, offering a clear, visual way to predict and prevent it. By referencing OAT, dew point, and RH against its zones, you empower yourself to make informed decisions, potentially averting disaster.

Click Here for a downloadable PDF of this
graphic you can post and share at your local airport!