Citing inadequate training of a pilot whose plane crash resulted in 11 deaths, the National Transportation Safety Board has called on the FAA to better monitor the effectiveness of flight instructors.
Three safety recommendations have been issued during the NTSB’s ongoing investigation of the June 21, 2019, Mokuleia, Hawaii, crash of an airplane on a parachute jump flight. The pilot and all 10 passengers died in the crash.
In the safety recommendation report, the NTSB referenced the FAA’s “Aviation Instructor’s Handbook,” which states the goal of a flight instructor is “to teach each learner in such a way that he or she will become a competent pilot.” The NTSB said that in regard to the Mokuleia accident pilot, “the flight instructor did not achieve that goal.”
The NTSB found the pilot had failed three initial flight tests in his attempts to earn his private pilot certificate, instrument rating, and commercial pilot certificate after receiving instruction from a single instructor. The pilot subsequently passed each flight test.
The NTSB also found that he was not alone in his failed attempts: The pass rate for other students taught by the same flight instructor was 59% for the two-year period ending in April 2020. According to FAA data, the average national pass rate for students of all flight instructors is 80%.
The NTSB said substandard student pass rates may be indicative of “a flight instructor who does not effectively teach the necessary skills associated with pilot certificates and ratings.”
The NTSB has asked the FAA to develop a system to automatically alert its inspectors of flight instructors whose student pass rates fall below 80%. Although a tracking system does exist to monitor pass rates, there currently is no automatic notification to an FAA inspector when a pass rate falls below the FAA-established rate of 80% and becomes substandard, NTSB officials noted.
The FAA’s stated practices on flight instructor surveillance are that substandard pass rates are indicative of instruction that needs to be more closely monitored so the FAA inspector can determine whether the instructor is providing adequate flight training. The NTSB found, however, that even with the substandard student pass rate, the Mokuleia flight instructor was not receiving appropriate additional scrutiny.
The NTSB also recommended that until a system that generates an automatic notification of flight instructor substandard pass rates is implemented, FAA inspectors should review flight instructors’ pass rates on an ongoing basis to identify any in need of closer monitoring.
The NTSB also asked the FAA to include substandard student pass rates as one of the criteria necessitating additional surveillance of a flight instructor.
The complete four-page safety recommendation report is available at Go.usa.gov/xARUu.
What about the 141 schools that push instructors with thinly-veiled threats to get the student the check ride, even though the instructor themself may not feel the student is ready? So the student fails, and who gets the ding? I’m aware of the 80% pass rate required for 141 certification, but in order to get a full 141 and eliminate the two-year provisional 141, 80% is required. Hence, the system forces marginal students to be recommended by an instructor under duress from above.
Then what about the student who stresses out during the flight test? They get scrambled for whatever reason or whatever. The instructor has zero say, but gets the ding. Even if the instructor has noticed the student might… might… underperform under stress or has little chance of successfully passing a ride, remember, they could be forced ni to recommending the student under duress. Such as losing their job. Tell that to the bank when the rent comes due – “I can’t pay this month’s car installment because I was fired for not recommending a student for his check ride.” See how far THAT goes.
To be sure, there are undoubtably a few instructors out there that shouldn’t be instructing or don’t have the student’s best interests in mind. But all i’m trying to point out is that there are some very real extenuating circumstances that can and do impact an instructor’s pass rate. Start at the top, not the bottom.
Unfortunately, many young CFIs don’t have the luxury of being able to refuse to continue giving flight instruction to an individual. Now in retirement, I’m able to do this … In fact have refused two out of five the past few years. One continued with another CFI and became a Private Pilot. Sadly, the other actually forged my solo endorsements and subsequently crashed and killed himself.
Great, Just what General Aviation needs is more Government control from the, “Peanut Gallery”, to finally finish off an already ailing industry. CFI’s get paid very little for the incredible liability they face if a student decides to have a brain fart while flying solo or carrying passengers when certificated, (even years down the road). While nothing is being said about the FSDO examiner who gives the student a comprehensive flight/ground test that is supposed to weed out areas of operation inconsistent with the Airman Certification Standards. If a pilot passes a flight test, then he/she can exercise those privileges’ associated with the certificate/rating. The rest is up to the certificated pilot to maintain proficiency associated with their certificate/rating. If the student hasn’t flown in years then they can spend whatever amount of hours it takes getting some dual from a CFI to get up to speed again. In other words, the CFI is not the weakest link in the chain of many variables. He or she is just the easiest to blame when it’s the PIC at fault.
This is long overdue. 80% is an easy mark to meet. There’s not many out there below this standard, but if you fall below it a little attention from the FAA to ensure you’re doing the right thing is important.
Some reasons pilots opt to become CFI’s is to build time for the airlines or they like instructing
It is difficult IMO to maintain an 80% pass rate. Sometimes an instructor can get a run of failures. Everyone is different and learn at different rates. Some students fail because of being apprehensive or just have a bad day
We forget that most of the public have no idea that there is something called GENERAL AVIATION ……With 200,000 General Aviation aircraft and 330 million Americans, most will never fly a light aircraft let alone become a pilot.
I have renewed my CFI 24 times. In all that time I rarely had a bad student. I knew most instructors to like flight training. I also knew some instructors that did a poor job training, but they did not last long and moved on to other things.
One of the sharpest students I ever had failed his first PPL flight test. He just screwed up according to him. He later went on the be an airline pilot
My feelings about the NTSB pushing this whole 80% thing is……Why isn’t the FAA watching closer? They actually have computer software that tracks pilots and mechanics and when examiners have too many failures they can track it back to the instructors.
If a pilot has an accident or a mechanic makes a mistake it can be tracked back to the examiners that tested that pilot or mechanic …….
So why the NTSB is jumping on the FAA is interesting since the FAA already has tools to track it’s airmen
Lastly the 80% rules stems back to FAR 141 training where that school must maintain an 80% pass rate or risk losing their 141 pilot certification
If 20% of the CFI students don’t pass the checkride, there is a problem. But, if the Designated Examiner passes too may applicants, the examiner is subject to re-inspection by the FAA.
Just so I can understand this, the goal is that 100% of the applicants should pass the exam.
How will the FAA handle the examiners who pass 100% of the applicants?
I seriously doubt that there are that many flight instructors out there that are providing substandard instruction. Sure, there are always a few bad apples in every group, but GA tends to be a very small group of folks, and a place where reputation is everything.
It’s not surprising the NTSB is the source, as when investigating GA incidents, especially ones where the pilot is unable to speak for himself, they often find the simplest cause “pilot error”.
The system is incredibly arbitrary. what if i was a new instructor, and had only sent two students for their practical, one fails, through some unfortunate circumstance. Now I’m at 50% pass rate and subject to a Visit from the “Friendly” folks at the FAA, who may just decide to pull my ticket, because they can. FSDO inspectors are an authority unto themselves, with little oversight and not much help for the ‘little guy’ no matter what the “pilots bill of rights’ says. They can essentially demand anything, and we’ve no practical recourse for defense.
Will they later extend the CFI’s responsibility to those that they’ve signed off for a fight review? A logical extension of this sort of thinking, what about endorsements? Ditto. Look forward to flight training taking an addition 50% or more time, as instructors will now be highly averse to the risk of a student failing For Any Reason.
Hopefully this gets thoroughly trashed during the comments period.
Exactly!
I am not in favor of any more freedoms or rights being targeted. The federal government and its executive agencies are already bloated. Haven’t we lost enough rights in 2020? This NTSB recommendation is complete hogwash.
The FAA reg in FAR 61 states a a private pilot has to have 40 hours to earn his certificate
On occasion students ask me how come they are not done yet with their training with let’s say 55 hours.
In metro NY with C and B airspace it takes time to operate with ATC.
I really HATE when students, especially average to below average students ask that question. Even after telling them upfront in the beginning before starting training I tell them it is based on proficiency. Everyone is different, everyone learns at different paces. But I tell them the national average first, then tell them it will ultimately depend on the student and how prepared they come for each lesson and how motivated they are to study. 80% of students DO NOT study. Most students are lazy! At some point after about 40-50 hours of flight time with struggling students, they steer the conversation in the direction of checkride dates, and ‘when will I be ready for the ride?’ Or even better, prior to their first solo, I’ve had a few students that are VERY slow learners and have no discipline to study, don’t come prepared at all (even after telling them what to read, study, practice, etc. for the 7th time), ask, “so when will you sign me off?” I just put it to them bluntly, while making them pull out the regs under part 61 for student pilot solo’s, and tell them “well, whenever you can demonstrate safety and proficiency in these maneuvers and procedures, then your good to go, but until then we will keep flying/practicing until we reach a level of proficiency that will keep you from killing yourself in an airplane.”
From what I am told, the FAA *already* has this evaluation tool (though not visible to every inspector) for both CFI pass rate and DPE performance. For many years a lot of substandard performers “flew under the radar.” Perhaps they will award “gold stars” in addition to “Gold Seals?”
Teaching . . . In a previous life I was an instructor at a vocational school (now out of business) and we taught people to be mechanics. (Not aircraft).
Out of every 100 students, we had maybe five who were really good, ten who would be OK, the rest of them really should be looking to do something else for a living, and three or four who should be threatened with disastrous consequences if they ever so much as looked at a wrench again.
Not everyone is cut out to do everything. Anyone can try, and that’s fine, but as the immortal Clint Eastwood said “A man’s got to know his limitations.” (I’ll never play pro basketball, I’m way too short and way too old now.)
Pilots too. Not everyone who can pass the test should really be a pilot. Exclusively blaming the instructor can be a mistake, sometimes the raw material just isn’t right. Unfortunately, sometimes people (and their passengers) don’t find out that they aren’t really cut out for this when it is too late.
This program is not going to give the FAA a complete picture. I imagine there are a few “bad”
CFIs out there, that are providing instruction (including the various endorsements, FRs & IPCs), but not necessarily sending students to check rides.
Same old government bologna. So the instructors get chastised ,but the designated examiners who approve pilots through check rides get off Scott free? The final approval lies with the DPE and that makes the DPE just as accountable if not more so than the instructor. This is a classic example of a double standard.
John O. hit the nail on the head in refusing to teach anymore. I was encouraged through my 50+ years as a pilot and aircraft owner to become an instructor. I love to fly and love to teach, but count me out if I have to put up with the liability through lawsuits from students and their families and now potential liability from the NTSB and FAA. No thanks. I’ll go teach Sunday school.
The CFI is basically responsible to approve an applicant for the exam. The CFI has spent hours in clos proximity to the applicant over a long period of time. They are in the best position to evaluate the applicant for fitness and aptitude to become a pilot. The examiner gets 2-6 hours with the applicant. They are only evaluating if they can pass the check-ride at a D- level, i.e. to they meet the minimum standards.
Your guv at work.
While the idea ™ seems laudible, in practice its going to be as stupid as one can expect.
Remember when states started using “lottery” money to pay tuition for “passing students”?
What happened to grades? What happened to education in general? Now what happens if someone does not pass? By defn, 1/2 of people are below average.
This is so chilling I’ll likely stop flying totally (even ‘when’ the ‘rona crap goes away). Because many a CFI WILL pass a student to keep their job.
Face the facts: 75% of people in this country should be no where near an airplane – even as a passenger.
Instructors don’t pass students, examiners do – or don’t.
Instructors don’t have to recommend anyone for a check ride regardless of how many hours of training that had. If a student isn’t ready in an instructor’s opinion then additional (and maybe focused) training is required. I’ve met students with 50 hours of dual and their own aircraft, but they still hadn’t been recommended for a ride. After a couple of hours I could understand why.
Luckily I never worked for a 141 school that required me so recommend a student for a check ride before they were ready. If the school’s criteria is hours and not capabilities then that’s the wrong school to work with. If an instructor is freelance then recommending unprepared students really should be examined very closely.
I taught for a few years in the bad (low income) old days of the ’70s and ’80s when there was as surplus of people for almost every role in aviation, but I eventually earned the Gold Seal. Life happened and I found another career more lucrative to my diet and living arrangements. However, over the past 50 years I’ve met only 1 other Gold Seal instructor of whom I’m aware. Over the years, I have wondered just how many really good instructors, and conversely how many poor instructors actually participated in the field. I am a small bit surprised that the FAA does collect pass/fail data on each instructor, but then doesn’t share it with their field folks or meld it into the renewal process somehow. Maybe this NTSB recommendation will prompt them to develop a remedial training program for low-performing instructors, a punitive solution will do nothing but harm to those still in the field.
Molokai ? How many DPEs did the instructor have to choose from on the island ? Is it possible the DPE was abnormally tough?
It could very well have been poor instruction on the CFIs part, but issues rarely have such easily discernible, cut and dried answers. A look at all possible answers is called for.
I believe the crash was at Mokuleia, Hawaii, on Oahu, near Dillingham airport, not Molokai island.
Okay as long as the punishment is srickly remedial training not enforceable with another check ride
I disagree. Instructors are under enough pressure as it is. No more burdens!
Head hunting for flight instructors again. This is why i do not teach much anymore, its not worth the risk!
Just what we need, more power to the federal government to help us wayward citizens…
Another garbage story now that Trump is about to exit.