Has pilot trainng changed significantly since the founding of aviation?

I can’t say much about the last 20 years.

When I taught, no one went for a check ride in a C-150 who could not land safely on a lighted airfield with a total electrical failure.

I never had a student pass the “Only emergency landing site” problem while practicing emergency landings or precautionary landings.

Before GPS, I know only of a few pilots who bothered to learn to fly the VOR with a dead needle & an good “To/ From” flag.

The whole group of new pilots who can not navigate without a GPS boggles my mind. Yes, they learn enough to pass the PVT test but after a year or two, give them a real world nav case with the GPS dead and they are dead. ( is not a blanket statement, just way more than should be. )

Gizmos & rules will not make a safe pilot nor is thinking that you can’t end up in a bad place if you only make good decisions. It is best to keep practicing what to do when it all goes sideways & to never forget to fly the airplane first.

Slight hijack:
I know that you’ve probably been taught as gospel that deduced reckoning is the proper expansion of ded. reckoning the “correct” form of dead reckoning. In all probability, however, this is a persistent myth within the aerial community and wrong. Dead reckoning dates back to the 17th century at least, while the deduced form first appears in the twentieth.

There’s a lot of interesting stuff here about the (for lack of a better word) tactics of flying, ie, navigation and advanced instumentation, but what about the physical aspect? As an analogy, a car from 50-60 years ago compared to a car from today is going to be heavy, slow, have poor brakes and rubbish handling. Would a modern standard flight school plane (if there is such a thing) have similarly improved performance characteristics?

I am not a flight instructor but I have flown airplanes as old as a 1942 model and as new as a 2005 model so perhaps I can contribute in a meaningful manner. If a flight instructor or older aviator of extensive experience knows better I’m sure they’ll say something.

To an extent, all airplanes across that time span fly the same. There are some minor differences - joysticks vs. yokes, for example - but that’s about the same difference between a gearshift on the floor and a gearshift on the steering column. But, for the most part, the same motions are going to get you the same results. For the most part.

My impression - based solely on my limited but varied flight experience - is that the newer airplanes are more forgiving. By which I mean mistakes on the part of pilot, or deliberate excursions to the edges of the flight envelope, are less likely to be alarming than in older airplanes. For example, although I did not stall the 1942 vintage airplane I am told that it tends to stall all at once and rather abruptly. The 1960-70 era of airplanes do noticeably drop during such a maneuver, but are easily managed/controlled. The 1970-80 models were even more docile. The 2000-2005 airplanes’ “stall” were more of a gentle settling. It also became progressively harder to stall the airplanes as you marched through the years, making an accidental stall much less likely. For routine flying - normal take-off, landing, and en route flying - the handling is pretty darn similar. It’s the flying outside of normal straight and level where the differences seem to show up.

Likewise, it was my impression that as the years marched by there were continual, small improvements that make piloting an airplane easier. By the 1950’s the layout of certain particularly useful instruments on the panel were standardized. By the 1960’s tricycle gear became much more common, reducing the incidence of ground loops, taxi accidents, and made take-offs and landings in crosswinds less of a chore or risk. I did notice an unfortunate trend between 1970-80 to less and less window, but that seems to have reversed, to the point that the airplanes I flew that were designed past 1990 have more and more window allowing for better visibility during flight.

Airplanes have become lighter and more fuel efficient, which reduces hourly operating costs. It’s almost unheard to have to handprop anymore, aside from experimental and/or vintage aircraft - given that a prop is typically 50-70 pounds of stuff shaped into something like a blade that swings around 1200 or more time a minute, I’m sure you can see the hazard in standing close to one while starting it. Electric starts are safer. We now have on-board parachutes available in some new airplanes for catastrophic accidents (which can even be retrofitted to some older models) and even airbags (on an airplane, the airbag is in the seatbelts, not on the “steering column” thingy). Seats also seem to have gotten better over time, at least from the standpoint of comfort, particularly past 1990.

I don’t think so. Light aircraft don’t benefit from hydraulic power assisted controls the way large aircraft and road vehicles do. You can design “power steering” into light aircraft (and medium sized aircraft as well) just by using aerodynamics. The aerodynamics relevant to light aircraft have been well understood since WWII at least, various aeroplanes have different handling characteristics but it doesn’t seem to correspond directly to era but more as a result of necessary compromises that must be made (a very stable aircraft won’t be as manoeuvrable as a less stable aircraft.) Having said that I haven’t flown any of the latest generation of trainers such as the Cirrus, but there was nothing wrong with the handling of the Cessna and Piper training aircraft.

I think one of the big changes coming to civil pilot training is the MPL, or Multi-crew Pilot Licence. The MPL is a training syllabus being introduced in some countries where a pilot shortage is expected. It involves training pilots specifically for the task of being an airline pilot. Concepts such as crew resource management are introduced right from the start and the trainee pilot is trained on an airline type aircraft such as a B737 from very early on (in a simulator.) Some countries in Europe have been doing this for a few years. Australia is just introducing it now and I don’t think the USA will ever have something similar given that congress recently mandated a minimum qualification of an Airline Transport Pilot Licence and 1500 hours to be a First Officer.

On the other hand, the US has more civilian pilots than any other country, last I heard (700,000+) and learning to fly is less expensive and has fewer barriers in the US than anywhere else - which is why other countries will sometimes send people here for pilot training rather than set up or expand their own programs. So the need for the MPL might well be less here.

Cockpit layouts have received increased attention in recent years. Older designs had gauges and levers and taps all over the place wherever the designer could fit them in and some were illogical to operate or hard to get move/stay put.

That’s right. Unlike Europe, the US has a good GA industry where new pilots can gain experience so there is no need to fast-track pilots.

Has anyone heard about the European proposal that would require U.S.-licensed pilots to be retrained and issued European licenses before they can fly there?

Anymore, you’re lucky if the VOR you’re navigating to is working. and the last time I checked my VOR it was so far off as to make it useless so I rely on the GPS to verify where I’m at on a map. Can’t use the LORAN as a backup anymore so I suppose I’ll carry my car GPS with me as a backup. A heading bug is a heading bug.

What I’ve come to rely on most with a GPS is information on airports en-route that I may want to divert to. I carry all the information on the airports I’m flying too so that’s not a problem. But without an autopilot it’s one-arm wall-papering event to flip through an airport guide or refold a map.

While I trained in a plane that would spin in slow flight I couldn’t take the test in my plane because there isn’t enough elevator to stall the wing. I would hope that it’s just a ground instructor notation in other countries and not part of the actual test.

Nope, still a part of the actual test in some places.

That’s either very strange or it’s totally normal. To require a US pilot to have a JAA licence in order to fly a US registered aircraft for a US airline in to Europe would be crazy, to require a US pilot to get a JAA licence in order to fly JAA registered aircraft in Europe would be normal world-wide practice.

Just slogged through some of this thread, it sounds like they’re restricting it somewhat. Without knowing more details I can’t tell just how different it is to what other countries are doing.

The US has long been known for having easy ATP exam/s. I know pilots in Australia who have gone to the US, converted their licence to an FAA one, sat the ATP exams, and then converted their FAA ATPL back to an Australian one, neatly sidestepping the Australian exams. Unfortunately the main Australian airlines will not hire someone who has not sat the Aus ATPL exams so it doesn’t always work out in the long run, but that is a business decision by the airlines, not a CASA restriction.

This is a bit unrelated to the OP, but I had never heard of the glass cockpit before, and it has me curious- what was the rationale behind phasing it in? My intuitive assumption would have been that mechanical instrumentation results in components that are harder to break, and compartmentalizes things better (if your altimeter gets screwed up, you still have everything else). So is the glass cockpit a response to a greater need for integrated data and instrumentation on commercial flights, or have they just gotten it reliable enough that it ends up being more convenient?

A glass cockpit has some big advantages. Take the HSI as an example, an HSI is an instrument with a compass rose on which your desired track is shown along with an indication of whether you are left or right of the track. It’s a great instrument but all it can ever be is an HSI and all it can ever show is your position in relation to your desired track. In a glass cockpit that would be replaced by a screen that can display all sorts of stuff, you can have your flight plan drawn on it overlaid with weather radar data and terrain, distance information to the next waypoint, any altitude requirement at that waypoint, an indication of where you’ll be when you reach the altitude you are climbing or descending to and many other things. It can change the type of display depending on the phase of flight you are in. There are several levels of redundancy available that are not possible with an electromechanical instrument. If your altimeter breaks, it’s broken, if one of your displays breaks you can just have the missing information transferred to the other screen. Also glass cockpit displays aren’t susceptible to parallax errors and are able to show much finer detail.

The only disadvantage to a glass cockpit is that there isn’t really any standardisation and so someone used to one type of display may be a bit lost transferring to an aircraft that uses a different system. Also the display can become cluttered with non pertinent information. A decent kit will let you control what is displayed on screen and you should always be able to revert to a display that is very similar to the basic HSI.

Some modern training aircraft have much more sophisticated instrumentation than we have in our antiquated turbo-prop.

I found the item

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/101005easa.html

There are plenty of responses here detailing the major changes over the course of the last 30 years or so.

The question asked however, was from the founding of aviation. To that end, I have a resource that any aviation enthusiast will most certainly want to get their hands on. I seriously can’t recommend this book enough. This book thoroughly details the flight instruction used by the R.A.C. and R.N. (Yes, it’s pre RAF) in this time period and also talks a bit about how the training methods have changed over time. It’s a very practical, plain english, description of the British WWI mindset used in flying an airplane in the last year of WWI.

Practical Flying
Complete Course of Flying Instruction

By Flight-Commander W. G. McMinnies, R.N.

1918

This book details (in depth) flight instruction used by the R.A.C. and R.N. in this time period and also talks a bit about how the training methods have changed over time.

Excerpt:
Dual-control Instruction

The method now almost universal of teaching pupils to fly is by means of dual-control machines. In the early days, after having acquired a theoretical knowledge of an aero-plane and the method of controlling it, the pupil was sent off for rolling practice, or “taxying,” on an under-powered machine, which could not possibly leave the ground. The next stage was to give him a machine with a wing surface sufficiently large just to allow him to get off the ground for short hops. From this he would advance to a machine which 'would just fly, upon which he would make “straights” until he was proficient, later on attempting turns on a more powerful machine.

This method has been superseded at all Service schools in favour of dual-control instruction. This means that the machine is provided with two sets of rudder and control levers, one to be worked by the pupil, who generally sits behind, and the other by the instructor. On some machines one set of control levers is used, but they are placed in such a way that the instructor can work them by reaching over the pupil’s shoulders. It is probably best for the pupil to be put in the pilot’s seat from the beginning and for a telephone or speaking tube to be arranged between him and the instructor.

Link (Google archive):

Something else I always wondered about was for a recreational pilot, what (if any) attributes of a small aircraft do you look for? Is it like a sports car where handling, top speed, maneuverability and the like are better on higher-end planes? Or does it all come down to personal preference or stuff that non-pilots wouldn’t think of?

Civilian side too. My brother’s brother-in-law works for a company that makes mid-sized commercial aircraft and trains their pilots. Before the weding, he booked us some time on their flight simulator with one of the trained instructors. Becuase flight sim time is often limited, they will use wooden mockups to get the pilots familiar with the instruments. Next would be a watered-down simulator. Some instrumentation and multiple monitors. Finally, the big full cockpit mockup on hydraulics. A pilot can actually qualify with little to no time in an actual aircraft.