Author: GoFly

I have owned a Flight School for over 10 years now. The majority of our students are learning to fly for fun. The majority of recreational flight students have no ambition to turn their passion for flying into a career; they just want to learn for the sheer joy of flying.

The next aviation revolution 

Currently there is a ‘quiet’ revolution going on with electric VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) technology. There are roughly 80 new start-up companies world-wide, designing, flight testing and trying to certify passenger carrying electric VTOL aircraft.

Some of these companies have had close to a billion dollars of private equity investment. Some of the most promising electric VTOL start-ups include Joby Aviation, Lilium, Kittyhawk, Archer and Beta, and then there are the big aerospace companies such as Airbus, Boeing and Embraer, all working on their own designs.

These companies are focusing on urban transport and are designing and certifying these new types of aircraft for affordable mass passenger travel. These aircraft only have a limited range (usually around 200km), however this satisfies densely urban transport such as city to airport transfers. Compared to current helicopters, the cost is projected to be up to five to ten times more affordable than current helicopter technology with less than half of the noise. This future VTOL market is estimated to be worth around a trillion dollars globally by mid-2035.

The effects on learning to fly

What has not really been discussed, is how this new technology will impact personal flying and in particular, personal fixed-wing flying. While most new startups are focused on the mass transport of passengers, some companies such as Jetson One and Air One are focused on the recreational pilot market. 

Startup company, Air, an Israeli-based start-up, is solely focusing on the personal recreational market with their Air One electric VTOL aircraft. While the full-scale prototype is set to fly later this year, the initial performance projections are impressive, with a one-hour range at around 90 knots with 30 minutes reserve, and it can carry two people. The aircraft has eight electric motors and a ballistic recovery system (BRS chute) for additional safety. The Air One also will have AI (artificial intelligence) self-diagnostic software that will complete the majority of the pre-flight inspections on most of the systems on behalf of the pilot. Projected sale costs are similar to an upper-end of the market Light Sport Aircraft (LSA).

Will students still want to fly fixed wing, VTOL or both?

Will future recreational pilots wish to continue flying fixed-wing aircraft or will they see electric VTOL as a better alternative? There are a few things to consider when trying to guess the answer.

Most recreational pilots fly locally

While most of our students continue on to complete their navigation and passenger endorsements, the majority of pilots who fly for fun are content to fly locally (within 50 nautical miles of the departing aerodrome). Most recreational pilots just want to get up in their local airspace and enjoy the freedom of flying and maybe share it with a friend or family member.

Those students who want to fly longer distances, have usually learned for business-related reasons and end up purchasing their own aircraft to save regularly having to drive long distances.

Learning to land is the hardest part of flying

Most people can be taught the basics of flying a plane, in a small amount of time. Landing however, is what separates the serious students from those who just think it will be cool to have a pilot’s licence.

It appears that piloting these new VTOL aircraft will be substantially easier than flying a fixed-wing aircraft. For instance, the take-off and landing in most of these VTOL aircraft will be computer-assisted. The pilot will not be responsible for basic stability in the hover, as is a helicopter pilot.

While mastering landings in a fixed-wing aircraft is rewarding, and some students love the challenge, I’m sure there are plenty of would-be students who would prefer this was a lot easier.

Runways optional 

The other huge benefit for VTOL is that no runway is required. Theoretically they can take off and land almost anywhere. 

While there are start-up companies working on this issue such as Skyportz, it will be a while before there are mass urban take-off and landing sites available for all VTOL types of flying, not to mention charging stations. The other factor is whether these sites will be available for personal use or only for commercial applications.

Range

Initially, range will be the biggest issue for early VTOL aircraft, the same as for early electric fixed-wing aircraft. I believe that within 10 years there will be hybrid VTOL (vertical take-off with a fixed-wing component, such as the start-up Beta, that can actually take off and land as a fixed-wing aircraft and have a range close to 400km. 

Battery technology is also improving at a rate of about 5 to 7% per year. This means that within 10 years, energy density should double. This is not taking into account any major breakthroughs in battery technology (such as solid-state batteries). 

Picture courtesy of Beta Technologies

The future is exciting 

While it is hard to predict the future, I think the personal VTOL aircraft revolution is still four to eight years away and when it arrives it is going to radically change urban transport and bring helicopter-like charter operations to the masses (rather than just the rich!).

There will still be plenty of individuals who will want to learn to fly in a fixed-wing aircraft. There is something magical about mastering a landing in a fixed-wing aircraft and as all pilots know, you never stop perfecting your landings. However, I think flying a recreational VTOL will also be rewarding in new ways. It is possible that this new technology will open up new opportunities and entice more tech-savvy pilots into the recreational flying space.

I can envision a future where a flight school has both electric fixed-wing aircraft and electric VTOL aircraft. Some pilots will be attracted to one type and some pilots will want to do both. The issue over the next five to eight years will be deciding who will manage the training and regulatory/safety aspect of these recreational VTOL type aircraft. 

While Commercial VTOL will be governed by CASA in Australia, who will take the regulatory lead with recreational VTOL aircraft? For instance in Australia, will it be governed directly by CASA, or by Recreational Aviation Australia, or some new self-administering organisation?

I don’t have the answers, but I think we need to start having the conversation now so we can all have a part in creating our flying (for fun) future. While it’s impossible to predict exactly what the future will hold, there is no doubt that the future of personal flying will be very exciting.

Damien Wills, CEO GoFly Group

Feature photo courtesy of Air One 

If you have already completed Practice Forced Landing (simulated engine failure) training you will remember how your flight instructor reiterated how important it is to adopt the best glide speed as soon as the engine goes quiet. So why is the best glide speed so important after an engine failure?

Glide performance and best glide speed

Firstly, for your aircraft type, the pilot operating handbook (POH) will advise what the best glide speed is for the aircraft type. The best glide speed is the airspeed for the best lift to drag ratio. Any faster than this speed and the total drag increases, and any slower than this speed, then the total drag increases.

A  simpler definition is ‘at the best glide speed the aircraft is delivering the maximum amount of lift for the least amount of drag’. This best glide speed is important to know in the event of an engine failure, as it will result in obtaining the best maximum gliding range for the aircraft.

As we can see from the graph below at the best glide speed total drag (Induced plus parasite drag) is at a minimum.

Factors affecting glide range

The maximum gliding range for the aircraft type will also be affected by wind, weight and aircraft configuration. If you are flying into a strong headwind, your gliding rage will be reduced; and if you are flying with a tailwind, your gliding rage will be extended.

As for weight, the heavier the aircraft, the more lift is required to balance the force of weight.  The extra weight means that for the same airspeed, more angle of attack is required to create more lift, which results in more drag and therefore diminishes the aircraft’s glide range.

Aircraft configuration also affects the aircraft glide range. For instance, if you have flaps selected, this will increase both induced drag and parasite drag. If the total drag increases, then the aircraft’s glide range will be reduced.

Time and distance is critical following an engine failure

Unless the aircraft is on fire, the pilot should aim to stay in the air as long as possible and have the longest possible glide range following an engine failure. This will allow the pilot to have more options in relation to field selection, and allow more time to complete the emergency procedures. By not adopting the best glide speed the pilot may not be able to make the pre-selected field to land in.

This short article is an extract from our BAK Easy Book, from the GoFly Online flight training platform. The GoFly Online Team wants to help you become the best pilot you can be. Feel free to try our 7–day FREE trial to access all videos, practice exams and theory books, at www.gofly.online

I’ve just finished reading a fantastic book called ‘Super Pumped: The Battle for Uber’ by Mike Isaac.  The book gives a very accurate account of the early startup years of Uber through to its massive growth and then finally having the CEO and founder, Travis Kalanick, fired as CEO and thrown off the board. The book is a riveting read and an incredible look behind the curtain of a huge-growth company. In particular it looks at what constitutes a ‘toxic culture’ and the dark side of a business that is completely driven by a ‘kill or be killed’ business mindset.

One of the main themes of the book, which struck a chord with me, is how many businesses, whether big or small, have the mindset of ‘we must kill or be killed’. Uber was incredibly aggressive with its growth targets and did not care which other companies they put out of business and what they had to do to achieve world domination. The book is a fantastic warning for any leader or business owner on how NOT to operate and grow a business.

Competitive Hostility 

‘Competitive hostility’ is the opposite of ‘mutual support’. In this mindset we believe that the world is a hostile place and that the business environment can be likened to a battle field. We believe that every competitor is a threat to our business, so to be successful we need to dominate and destroy the competitor; kill or be killed.

In this mindset we believe in scarcity; that there is not enough for everyone and we must fight to work hard to get ahead of the competitor; that no one can be trusted and we must protect everything that we own, at all costs, to secure our future success.

Uber initially operated with a competitive hostility mindset but fortunately the shareholders and some key private investors and board members painstakingly tried to turn the company around by adopting a more gentle ‘mutual support’ mindset.

What the former CEO of Uber, and many large multinational companies fail to grasp, is that there is more than enough business for multiple companies in that particular industry. Uber could still have been worth billions, even if their competitor, Lyft, owned half the global market share.

Mutual support

Mutual support is not built on a feeling of scarcity but a belief in abundance, a feeling that there is more than enough for everyone. It is a positive framework that is built on passion and inspiration and not fear. I have read a lot of books about the two different mindsets. One of my personal heroes is the late Buckminster Fuller (inventor, futurist and author). He strongly believed that to build a better world we must all start thinking in terms of ‘mutual support’. Mutual support is the idea that there is more than enough pie for everyone. It proposes that the best way to succeed is to help others succeed.

By helping each other – even our competitors – we can ALL succeed. I believe that you and your competitor can both succeed.

Strategic alliances and mutual support

I started a flight school ten years ago, grew a little too fast and ended up having three schools, then closed the Armidale and Caboolture schools to concentrate on the school at Caloundra airport. I have always operated on the assumption that there is enough business for everyone and that if you just concentrate on making your product or service better – through continuous improvement –  and you have a meaningful reason for ‘why’ you are in business, the money will follow.

To make my weather-dependent flight school business more resilient, I started the GoFly Online video platform. The Caloundra school is now at a point where I can afford to employ a CFI, and more recently, an Operations Manager, so that I can focus more on the online content. I have since formed strategic partnerships with two aircraft owners and three other flight school owners with similar values, to share resources, have cost efficiencies with maintenance and marketing, provide career pathways for staff and to share in even more slices of the never-ending pie. When we work together, we can achieve far more as a team than trying to compete and protect ourselves on our own.

Declining industries are generally hostile 

Many of us have heard the story of how the CEO of the Blockbuster video chain declined an invitation to partner with a little known startup company called Netflix. Blockbuster had a hostile competitive mindset. Now they don’t have anything.

If companies in declining industries could move to a mutual support mindset, they would be better placed to work with other businesses and innovate their way to new high-growth industries instead of protecting what they have always done. In a similar vein, I recently discovered that the R&D team at Kodak invented digital photography back in the 70s but management thought it would cannibalise their existing business, so hid the technology. Kodak’s rivals seized the opportunity and embraced the innovation. Now there’s not many Kodak moments.

Survival mode does not have to be hostile mode!

I have noticed a trend over the last 10 years when the economy softens, or we have an unexpected disruption – such as COVID 19 – and revenue decreases, that many of my competitors get even more aggressive. I understand that many businesses in this present environment are in survival mode and doing it very tough, however that is not an excuse for looking at ways of putting your competitor out of business so you can get a bigger slice of the pie.  A better way would be to look at how you can pivot and cut costs in your own business or even look at supporting and helping your entire industry, not just your own business.

Competitive hostility is rampant in the aviation industry

I have competitors who refuse to speak to me and who have tried to damage GoFly’s reputation. One of our competitors used to copy our website and special offers almost word for word. Another wrote a bad Google review in an attempt to tarnish our brand. Yet another tried to poach an aircraft that we leased and yet another wrote a letter in support of a former student’s ill-fated attempt to sue me.

What these hostile businesses don’t understand is that I actually want them to succeed. It is not a zero-sum game: I don’t have to fail for them to win and they don’t have to fail for me to win. We can all win in the long term.

I am so grateful that we have formed alliances now with businesses and individuals who have a ‘mutual support’ mindset and this helps drive and create a better company and culture, and creates businesses that are less fragile over the long term.

I also have noticed that businesses who are not driven by continuous improvement and innovation are hostile to companies who are. It is classic protectionism based on fear that the competition might come up with a better service or product than their business currently offers.

If companies spend a large proportion of their time and revenue on their own business innovation and improvement, there will be less time to worry about what a competitor is doing, and less time to try to destroy the competition. At times it is hard to operate with a ‘mutual support’ mindset in business when a large majority of your competitors believe in competitive hostility and are trying to destroy your business or aggressively poach your customers.

The ‘mutual support’ mindset is like the kind guy in the room, while the ‘competitive hostility’ mindset is like the bully waiting to hit you and steal all that you have. There are many proven ways to deal with bullies in real life. A hostile competitor should be dealt with the same way. Here are three easy ways you can deal with a hostile business bully.

1. Ignore them (if they’re not doing any real harm, other than to your pride)
2. Report them (if they are doing anything illegal or unethical which impacts on your business)
3. Keep making YOUR business the best business it can be, and go back to point number 1 and ignore them

It’s hard to not to want revenge

I am a bit addicted to the TV series ‘Billions’, in which the main protagonist, a billionaire called Bobby Axelrod, believes that in the business world you have to kill, or be killed. He goes to great lengths to plan strategies to cripple his perceived enemies. At times when someone has tried to hurt me personally or professionally, I am aware of my inner Axelrod rising up, and for a moment I want revenge on the person or business that has tried to do me harm. It’s just a natural human reaction. When I feel this way, I remind myself that this will not only distract me from making my own business better but also distract from my own inner peace. Anyone who acts from a ‘competitive hostility’ mindset is living a life of fear.

Einstein’s famous question

Einstein famously stated that the most important question any individual can ask themselves is, ‘Is the Universe a friendly place?’ The CEO of Uber did not believe the universe was friendly – and the consequences for him were dire.

I believe in a friendly universe and that mutual support is a much healthier mindset to have both as individuals, businesses and the planet as a whole. The irony of the Uber story is that most people that I know, love the quick, efficient and cashless Uber experience. Uber could still have built a great company by charging customers a little bit more, treating their staff and drivers a lot better, and accepting that more than one Uber-type business can exist in the world. Hopefully Uber is now travelling in the right direction.

Competitive hostility is hard work

With a competitive hostility mindset you’re always looking over your shoulder and living in a state of paranoia and fear. You’re obsessed with what the other business is doing, more than being obsessed with making your own business better. You make yourself work harder because you believe that if you don’t work harder, your competitor will put you out of business. Having this mindset is just plain exhausting and bad for your health.

Your competitor may still go out of business

You can have a mutual support mindset with your business and your competitor might still go out of business. If you focus on making your business the best it can be for your staff and your customers, and your competitor goes out of business, this doesn’t mean that you were being competitive or hostile. It just means they either didn’t create an environment of continuous improvement or their product or service did not find a market.

Mutual support is easy

You have all heard the phrase ‘go with the flow’. This statement sums up why living with a ‘mutual support’ mindset works. You still create and work, but you’re NOT DRIVEN BY FEAR. Fear is replaced by inspiration. The work itself is what drives you, not just the end result, and you couldn’t care less about what your competitor is doing because you’re having too much fun playing in your own business.

When we heard that a local simulator operator was struggling to pay high rent in a central location, we invited him to move into our building, as I knew that our own students would love to use the sim and it was a value add-on to our own school. When we heard that a local aerobatics flying school was struggling to find a hangar to rent, we approached them to use our briefing rooms and share our hangar space – as I knew that aerobatics was an obvious next step in our own students’ training.

We were approached by two other fledgling flight schools at Redcliffe and Heck Field, to form a strategic alliance to provide our excellent instructors and our online video training. We made sure that the partners shared our desire to give awesome customer service, and both partnerships and schools are now doing well. Likewise, we invited two of our pilots who happened to be video producers and web designers, to form a partnership to share in the creation of, and the income from, our GoFly Online video platform.

Only you can decide whether to believe in hostility or support. I choose to believe that mutual support is the better option, and to surround myself with others who also believe it. I might still get bullied occasionally but life is so much more fun and peaceful with this mindset!

Damien Wills

September 2020

To read more of Damien’s blogs, click here.

This article was originally written in February 2020 for the May edition of  ‘Australian Flying’ magazine – well before the outbreak of the Coronavirus pandemic, and its effects on the airline industry.

This blog is for all Flight School operators, CASA and government policy makers, airline board members and anyone else who has an interest in innovation and the future of the aviation sector.

I’m going to suggest a change. The main problem with change is that most of us see change as a threat, plus there is a natural bias towards maintaining the status quo when something is already working. Changing is even harder when many individuals and businesses are still making a profit by doing things how they have always been done. 

Presently Australia’s major airlines are experiencing a temporary lull in the hiring of pilots, but it is evident that there will soon be a serious global pilot shortage caused by the increase in low-cost travel, the growth of the Asian middle class and and the retirement of senior airline staff. Boeing for instance has projected that airlines and business aviation will require another 790,000 pilots worldwide by 2037. Added to this is the fact that not so many students are learning to fly as the cost of flight training has been steadily increasing. Also some segments of  the flight training industry have been declining for some time due to increased costs, regulation and, to put it politely, a lack of imagination and innovation.

When  business owners try to improve things for customers and staff, they try to reduce ‘friction points’ (or ‘pain points’). Flight training presently has many friction points, and I am going to focus on one of the main friction points which, I believe, if eliminated could create a positive trifecta for the airlines, General Aviation flight schools and student pilots. 

Eliminate the need for a twin-engine instrument rating 

For the direct entry route, most airlines currently equire the candidate to have at least 500 hours of multi-engine command instrument time before they can apply. Some airlines have reduced this requirement and only require a multi-engine instrument rating with no multi-engine command hours, however this is more of an exception rather than a rule.

The issue with this scenario is that twin-engine piston charter is in decline. The industry is replacing the ageing twins (such as Piper Chieftains and Barons) with single-engine turbine aircraft or twin-engine turbines and many of these charter routes are being replaced with small turbine RPT airlines. It is becoming harder and harder for self-funded future airline pilots to get a twin-engine charter job to build the twin command hours required for the airlines.

Most of the entry-level hour building jobs for the airlines are now coming from flight schools. Also airlines now prefer direct entry pilots to have an instructor rating as they can be utilised for check and training roles at a later stage. 

BUILDING COMMAND TIME FOR THE AIRLINES AS A FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR

The major issue with building twin command time with a flight school is that twin-engine flying only accounts for about 15% (or less) of the overall flying conducted at a typical non-integrated CPL flight school. 

This means that for a typical flight school doing 100 hours of flying a week, it would take the average instructor three years to get to the point where they could conduct twin engine training and another three to four years to build up the required 500 hours of command that airlines want. 

TWIN ENGINE PISTON TRAINING IS HIGH RISK

Contrary to popular belief, twin-engine piston aircraft are no safer than single-engine aircraft. In fact, your chance of a fatality is higher if you suffer an engine failure in a piston twin. Let’s not forget that on takeoff with a twin, you are twice as likely to suffer an engine failure, and in most light twins if you are at max take off weight on takeoff on a less than ideal day, then there is a very real chance you are not going to climb. This is just an additional training risk that flight schools have to carry for their business, instructors and students.

AIRCRAFT UTILISATION 

A twin-engine aircraft generally can only be used for twin-engine endorsements and instrument ratings. Due to the high operating cost it is usually not used for any other type of training such as building command hours. This means that at many flight schools twin-engine aircraft are sitting dormant for the majority of the time. There is a cost to the flight school to train and make sure all their flight instructors are current on these twin-engine aircraft. 

AIRCRAFT ACQUISITION AND OPERATING COSTS

It doesn’t matter whether you are buying a second-hand twin or new aircraft, they are all expensive to purchase and maintain. A second-hand Baron can cost $150,000 to $500,000 while a new aircraft can cost upwards of a million dollars. The basic operating costs of a Baron (fuel, maintenance and engine replacement and insurance) is around $450 an hour. This is the minimum cost before the flight school can even think about making a profit. The current cost for a twin-engine endorsement and multi-engine instrument rating is between $20,000 to $30,000 for an Australian student pilot. 

A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

My suggestion is that the direct entry level requirement for airlines should be a CPL with a single-engine instrument rating and ATPL subjects passed. This would then allow schools to have only one or two aircraft types online for flight training. This would have the benefit of reducing costs for the flight school and the student and make available more potential pilots for the future airline pilot shortage.

If the airlines were not hiring at the time the student graduated, they could use the funds that would have been used for a twin-engine rating towards an Instructor rating to make them more employable.

You could hypothetically have a flight school doing ab initio training with a Cessna 172 which could also double as an IFR trainer and then the school only requires one Cessna 182 for CPL training and IFR training. (Personally I believe CPL training should be able to be conducted in a Cessna 172 providing it has a glass cockpit and autopilot. The Federal Aviation Administration in the US has now gone down this path.)

Alternatively, a flight school could potentially operate only a fleet of Cirrus SR 20s for use as both basic training and advanced IFR CPL training (one aircraft type; you don’t get much simpler than that). The benefit is that once you have obtained your single-engine rating, keeping it current would be a lot less expensive than keeping a multi-engine rating current. Currently the cost of a standard CPL with multi-engine instrument rating is around $85,000. With a single-engine IFR integrated into a CPL course, this could be reduced to around $60,000.

For those of you who worry about flying in heavy IMC in a single-engine aircraft, remember that IFR training can be conducted in VFR conditions with the student wearing a hood. You do not have to train in heavy IMC.

MODERN SINGLE-ENGINE AIRCRAFT

The flight school that I own operates a Cirrus SR20 for PPL and CPL training and the avionics are on par with any modern airliner. I believe that learning to conduct instrument training on this platform is going to be as good – or more beneficial – than in a 30 year old analogue piston twin for any future airline pilot. Also any Cessna 172 can be converted to have a modern Glass cockpit with autopilot for IFR training for a lot less cost than purchasing a new or secondhand twin-engine aircraft.

TYPE RATING

Operating a multi-engine piston aircraft is dramatically different from operating a multi-engine turbine or pure jet; performance and complexity being the big difference. The airline will type certify a newly employed pilot anyway on that particular aircraft. What airlines really want is a direct entry pilot who can fly an accurate instrument approach and who works well within a team and who is obsessed with flying. I would suggest that General Aviation twin piston charter companies follow the airline path and that CASA creates a type rating for every different type of twin-engine piston. So if you want a charter job flying Barons after your CPL, then you get a type rating on a Baron and this upgrades your single engine IFR to multi for that aircraft type.

REAL WORK EXPERIENCE 

The argument I hear from many airline and multi-engine pilots is that flying single pilot command twin engine IFR gives the pilot ‘real world’ experience before joining an airline. I don’t doubt that this does increase a pilot’s abilities however I would also suggest that flying single pilot IFR in a piston twin is a lot different than flying multi crew jets for an airline.  Also, a new First Officer in an airline will spend on average two to seven years as a First Officer before gaining a command position. Isn’t the First Officer learning real world experience during this time?

THIS MODEL ALREADY WORKS

For those of you who don’t like change or think that what I am proposing is ridiculous, then I would point out that this idea is nothing new and is already working. The current MPL or Multi Crew Pilots Licence is used by many airlines in Europe and the Middle East and has been very successful since 2006. 

The MPL course usually involves a student completing around 75 hours of basic and instrument training on a single-engine aircraft such as a Garmin Cessna 172. They complete their CPL and ATPL theory subjects and then progress directly to a type rating on a simulator for that particular jet.

No multi-engine time is required; just a focus on multi crew and advanced systems. If this licensing has been successful for many airlines then does it not stand to reason that the twin-engine rule is possibly redundant for direct entry airline pilots?

TIMES ARE CHANGING

I find it slightly amusing that CASA is supposedly going to grant approval for electric VTOL passenger carrying aircraft in Melbourne for Uber Elevate and yet many students still have to learn in 30 year old gas-guzzling twin-engine aircraft before they can apply for an airline. There is a huge disconnect between new forms of transport and existing transport and training (having rules that were created around WWII). The reason for this is quite simple: a new industry such as electric on demand VTOL does not have entrenched rules and regulations and an existing bias towards maintaining the status quo. 

Some flying schools who now operate twin trainers and who are making a profit may be angered by this article, however before they judge or make up their minds about whether my suggestions make sense, may I suggest they all ask themselves these important questions:

• Do you think schools will still be training on old piston twins in 20 years’ time?
• Will flight schools be able to afford new million dollar twin-engine training aircraft to replace their ageing twins?
• What is the best solution for the Aviation industry and students in relation to training the next generation of airline pilots? 

Damien Wills

CEO, GoFly Group

To read more of Damien’s aviation blogs, click here

Some students and even some veteran pilots experience air sickness from time to time. In fact for my first 10 hours of flight training (about 20 years ago now) I was sick during every lesson.

Eventually the sickness disappeared but I learnt a few things along the way. Below I have outlined a few of my tips:

Eat something before you fly

I am still amazed at how many new students have heard that it’s best not to eat anything before you fly or you might get sick.  Nothing could be further from the truth. You need something in your stomach otherwise you are guaranteed to get sick. However that doesn’t mean you should go and fill up with a stack of pancakes and a chocolate milkshake.  If you suffer air sickness keep your diet simple when flying. 

Food to Avoid

• Anything with lots of sugar and anything with milk (so rule number one = avoid milk)
• If you are dieting, skip the protein shake and have some real food that day
• Avoid anything too greasy or oily
• Avoid soups – I have learnt this the hard way)
• Avoid salads with lots of lettuce or cabbage, this will give you gas and will not help matters.

Food you can eat

Here are some foods I have found work well for me: 

• Bananas work very well.  They fill you up with no yucky feeling
• Rye Bread (toasted is OK) with vegemite or something else light on the bread  
• Ginger tablets – these work well for stopping nausea

Wear loose cotton clothing

Make sure your clothing is light and can breathe. If you get hot you are more likely to feel sick.

Have plenty of ventilation

Choose an aircraft that has plenty of air vents and plenty of ventilation. If idling for a long period at the holding point or while sitting and chatting to the instructor before the flight, have the canopy wide open

Drink plenty of water

This one is a important: you will get air sick if you’re dehydrated.  So sip on pure water before you fly and take a bottle of water in the air to sip on.

Tell the instructor if you feel sick

It amuses me how some students would prefer to vomit all over the cockpit than to suffer the embarrassment of having to let the instructor know that feeling sick. I know know the tell-tale signs all too well:  students become quieter, they start sweating, their face becomes pale and they don’t react very quickly.

 It’s important to tell the instructor as soon as you feel a bit queasy.  The instructor can then make things more comfortable for you, to try to avoid any impending projection.

Damien Wills, May 2015

To read more blogs by Damien, click here.

In January 2021, I published an article titled ‘My SOAR point with VET Student Loans for Flight Training’. I hereby retract that article, in particular, my comments concerning Mr Neel Khokhani.

Recently in the Australian newspapers there was a story about 15 students who were taking a very large flight school to court for not meeting the students’ expectations for their Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL) flight training. It was no surprise that 99 percent of this school’s training was conducted under the Vocational Education and Training (VET) Student Loan program.

I have been in the industry for over 30 years and owned a busy flight school for almost 10 years. While the majority of my flight school’s training is recreational and we do not qualify for VET loans, I know a lot of instructors who have worked in a VET Loan funded school and some of the feedback is not good.

The news about the 15 students who are taking this large flying school to court is, I believe, just the tip of the iceberg in relation to the current problems with the VET fee program. The reality is, most CPL students are afraid to complain because they are so desperate to obtain their first job in aviation. In Australia, the aviation industry is still a fairly small community and no one likes to be branded a complainer, plus, most employers will ring the training organisation or expect a reference from them, so most students realise that it’s easier to just shut up and hope for the best.

How does the VET Student Loan program work?

The program is a loan scheme which assists eligible full fee paying students studying an approved VET course, to pay their tuition fees. The loan for flight training is up to a current limit of around $104,440, and up to $150,000 from January 2020.  To be eligible for inclusion in the program, flight schools need to have their own Part 141 and 142 and be a registered training organisation (RTO) with the government plus follow some other strict rules.

Currently students only have to start to repay the amount after their wage or salary is above $51,957 (or for 2019/20, above $45,881). The government also charges around $17,000 in administration fees AND the loan increases each year with the consumer price index! Here’s an extract from the Government’s VET Student Loan Information booklet:

A 20 per cent loan fee applies to VET Student Loans for full fee paying/fee for service students. The loan fee does not count towards your FEE-HELP limit. You do not have to pay the loan fee upfront – it is added to your HELP debt at the ATO. For example, if you are undertaking a course that costs $1,000, the loan fee is $200 (i.e. 20% of $1,000). So your VET Student Loan debt for that course will be the cost of the course ($1,000) + the loan fee ($200) = $1,200. 

VET Study Loan is too easy to get for both the flight school and the students

Currently, with most schools eligible for VET study loans, the entry requirements are fairly basic as far as minimum education or aptitude tests. There are some schools that do run test screening and interviews for potential flight students (similar to airline-type interviews and testing) but this is quite rare. The reality is that learning to fly to PPL level is hard, but achievable, for most students. Completing your flight training to CPL level is a whole  different story – and honestly not everyone has what it takes to be a commercial pilot. That’s why airlines and the Air Force don’t just hire anyone who wants to be a pilot. Every specialised career requires certain personal, mental and emotional traits for that specific career. For instance, I would make a terrible pro tennis player no matter how much I wanted it.

I support some type of VET Study Loan or similar program but I believe the current system is broken and is permitting some CPL students who shouldn’t be allowed, or encouraged to continue, when the school knows those students will struggle to meet CPL standards.

Money grab

It is frightening to think that many of the flight schools which utilise VET fee are using it for more than 90 percent of their students. This goes against basic business fundamentals: you should never rely on a single revenue funnel or have a single point of failure for your business. If the government of the day decides to make changes or stop VET loan funding (which they can at any time) flight schools which are dependent on it could collapse overnight, and this has happened already in Qld.

Many of the VET loan schools see VET Study Loans as a fairly easy and constant source of cash flow. The issue with this is that over time, this easy cash erodes basic common sense and can lead to dishonest dealings with flight students about their ability to become a commercial pilot.

Imagine if you ran an acting school and you were desperate for students. A student walks in and says ‘Here’s $100,000. Please teach me to become an A list actor’. Then, after a week of training them, you realised that this student would never be a great actor. Would you give them the $99,000 back and tell them, ‘Sorry, but we can’t help you. You will never be good enough.’ Probably not. The temptation for many flight schools is to accept the money and just hope the student finally improves. Money has a tendency to dilute common sense.

An Instructor who was teaching at a large school told me that less than half of the students passed their CPL flight test at the first attempt. Also, many of the students were not CPL material but the school just kept training them anyway because they were VET loan funded. Getting a student to PPL level is possible for most instructors but getting them to CPL level is a lot harder.

I have also had a few students who quit their VET loan funded school (before their debt was too great) and then completed their training at my school using their own money, as they deemed the training and cost at the first school to be unreasonable. One of the students had racked up a debt of $20,000 and had not yet gone solo or been advised about any potential issues as to why they hadn’t achieved solo. Once again, the student did not wish to complain because they eventually wanted a job in the industry.

Students do not understand the price of each lesson

It would be unfair if I blamed all the current problems facing VET loan on government policy and some greedy flight schools. Part of the current issue is that students who receive VET loans don’t really understand the actual costs because they have not had to work for each flying lesson. Most of my students pay for their own flight training. They can see the connection between how many hours they have worked, and how many hours of flying they can afford. They will correct us very quickly if we accidentally enter the wrong hobbs and overcharge them by .1 of an hour!  Paying for one’s own flight training tends to weed out those who really want to fly and those who just like the idea of being a pilot. If a student paying with their own money is not happy with the level of service or training, they will simply take their business to another school.

I believe there needs to be a public conversation and that both the General Aviation and Recreational Aviation flying schools should be involved in the debate on the future of VET loans so we can create a funding scheme that’s fair for all pilot training schools and students.

To start the conversation, I have outlined below a few suggestions:

Suggestion 1: New entry requirements for VET study loans

To prove that the applicant is both keen on becoming a pilot and can meet the educational requirements, I propose that there are some entry requirements for VET loans for pilot training. This would prove that the applicant has the motivation to at least save and pay for initial flight training themselves and can actually fly a plane to solo standard.

1. Basic pass grade for year 12 or equivalent
2. Pass an English proficiency test
3. Pass the Class 01 Medical
4. Have gone solo in a fixed wing aircraft (General Aviation, Recreational or Glider)

Suggestion 2: VET loan paid in stages and offered to all flight schools

The CPL theory course is complex and hard. The issue with the theory component is that a lot of students only start sitting their CPL theory exam towards the end of their physical flight training. If they don’t pass the theory, they cannot obtain their CPL.

Stage 01: CPL theory VET loan

If the student has already gone solo then they could apply for the ‘Stage 01: CPL theory VET loan’ component. The first stage of the VET Loan would be a $6,000 amount to attend a CPL ground school with one of the approved CPL theory providers across Australia. Only if they have passed all the CPL subjects can they then apply for the second stage of the VET study loan.

Stage 02: PPL VET loan

‘Stage 02: PPL VET loan’ funding would be up to $20,000 to achieve PPL level or 60 hours of dual lessons and solo flying .This can be conducted in both Recreational Aircraft and General Aviation aircraft or a mixture of both. Only when the student passes their PPL can they then apply for stage 03 funding.

Stage 03: Command building VET Loan 

‘Stage 03: Command building VET Loan’ would be for up to $30,000 to build 100 hours of command time in either a Recreational or General Aviation aircraft. Before being approved, the student must have an independent audit from a qualified Instructor to see if they have the potential flight standard to continue to CPL.

Stage 04: CPL training VET Loan

‘Stage 04: CPL training VET Loan’ would be for up to $20,000. The student can apply for this stage once they have their command time to complete the final CPL training.

Stage 05: Instrument and Instructor rating

‘Stage 05: Instrument and Instructor rating’ would be up to $50,000. This stage is for completing either their Twin Engine Instrument rating and/or Instructor Rating and can only be started once the student has passed their CPL flight test.

Under this arrangement, each new stage can only be started if they have passed the previous stage. And importantly, the student can change to another school at any time if they are not happy with the level of service/ training provided by that school.

Currently, only flight schools that can afford the expensive processing and approval process to become a registered RTO can get VET loan approval. This means VET study loans are only available to larger pilot training schools which leads to a winner-takes-all situation where only a few players have approval, and leading to limited choices for potential students. It also makes it unfair to the other flight schools that are not large enough to afford the overheads that are required to become a Registered Training Organisation.

Suggestion 3: Training standards and consistent auditing

A lot of the arguments I hear from other instructors and pilots sound like this: ‘If we open up VET loans to all flight schools then the training standards will reduce.’ The current reality is that we have students taking flight schools to court and the low number of students passing their CPL at many of the VET loan schools prove that being both part 141 and 142 and RTO approved is not always a prerequisite for customer service or quality flight training.

My suggestion is that if a school wants to be a VET study loan school it has to pay a $5,000 per year processing management/auditing fee. This would give them access to an online student management system that can be audited by an approved government or independent auditor who would audit the school and the students’ flight training standards every 12 months.  The audit would include a qualified independent Instructor to fly with random VET loan funded students to ensure standards were being maintained. This fee would also pay for a complaint and resolution service for the students. If a school fails their audit three times in a row then they are de-registered for VET loans.

The government could save millions

I suspect the government would actually save millions by implementing this plan. If the entry requirements for students were tougher and the funding was available to all flight schools it would keep the entire industry honest and fair. Personally I always encourage students to pay for their own flight training if they have the ability to, because a debt is still a debt hanging over you regardless of how attractive it looks upfront.

There are still a lot of VET loan approved flight schools which are doing a great job and are completely honest and transparent with their students about their progress. However it only takes a few larger VET loan funded schools to be greedy and to completely destroy a government program that was designed to assist the General Aviation businesses and to alleviate the current pilot shortage.

It will be interesting to see how the court challenge by the 15 students progresses. Just this week the TAFE partner of the flight school has suspended flight training and demanded to see some documentation. Hopefully the Government will come to realise that just throwing large sums of cash at a limited number of approved schools isn’t the only way to overcome the pilot shortage.

As always, I’m interested in hearing your thoughts.

Damien Wills

CEO, GoFly Group

4 November 2019

To see what other blogs Damien has written, click here.

Why I decided to make my flight school Carbon Neutral 

As far as we can tell, GoFly Aviation is the first flying school in Australia to become Carbon Neutral for its light sport aircraft emissions. We do this by paying a carbon offset organisation to plant trees to offset the amount of Carbon our very fuel-efficient aircraft put into the air every year.

As the owner of the company, I believe that we are all contributing to the slow destruction of our planet by using existing energy technologies (fossil fuels). I love flying but I don’t like the idea of polluting the air any further. I am trying  to relieve some of the guilt I feel for adding more carbon to the air. 

When I tell people that GoFly has gone carbon neutral, I often get stunned looks: the individual either doesn’t know what I am talking about, or believes, like many others, that global warming is not real.

I really don’t care whether you believe in global warming or not. What I am more concerned about is when individuals do not take the time to think about an important subject deeply, before forming an opinion – and this includes myself for much of the time.

The polarisation of the climate debate and the ego

It amazes me how passionate many individuals are about climate change and how polarising the subject can be for so many individuals. On one side of the equation we have the Extinction Rebellion members who believe our planet is doomed and we have limited time to repair what we have already started.

On the other end of the spectrum are the non-believers who think the entire global warming movement is mere propaganda and climate change is just a naturally occurring phenomenon and that temperatures have risen and fallen for thousands of years. Recently Facebook has become filled with posts with each side trying to quote scientists and facts to prove to the other side who is right and who is wrong!

I sit somewhere in the middle; believing in global warming but also believing that we DO have time to correct the damage if we make intelligent and logical choices now.

This blog is not about proving to anyone the science behind my beliefs and not trying to convince you that either scenario is right or wrong. What I do think is crazy and seems to be left out of the mass media and collective conversation, is that it doesn’t matter whether global warming is real or exaggerated, clean energy is STILL a better solution for everyone and for our planet.

Groupthink: the enemy of individual thinking and contemplation

The term groupthink refers to the phenomenon where a group of people who have the desire for harmony or conformity, tend to think and agree on the same subjects without proper investigation or free thinking. 

Thanks to the rise of social media, ‘group thinking’ is becoming more prevalent. The flip-side of this is that fewer and fewer of us are taking the time to think deeply about important topics that affect us now and into the future. The climate debate is one such example which encourages group thinking from both extremes, from the non-believers to the mass extinction believers. 

We are all guilty of group thinking from time to time and we are all capable of deep independent thinking if we know the right questions to ask. Today I am going to provide some questions for you and I would love for you to start thinking deeply about these questions.

Do you think clean energy is bad for our planet and humanity?

Clean energy is generally referred to as energy from the wind, sun, or water movement,, that is renewable and does not pollute the atmosphere or damage the planet, or damages the planet considerably less than fossil fuel energy production such as coal, natural gas or petroleum. Clean energy may also include other technologies that have not been developed yet, such as Thorium Nuclear fusion reactors, but for the moment let’s just focus on the three conventional sources of clean energy.

I would like you to think about solar, wind and water energy and ask yourself:  is there any negative effect for our planet as a result of using this energy to slowly replace fossil fuels over the next 30 or so years?

Do you think air pollution and smog is good for us?

As everyone knows, Los Angeles suffers from extreme smog. This is fact and we know that the majority of  smog is caused by fuel being combusted in cars, trucks and other vehicles. Study after study has proven the long term serious health effects of living in cities with high pollution levels. Just ask any asthmatic who lives in LA the effect that smog has on their asthma.

 Most of you will agree that a world without dirty, smelly air pollution would be better for everyone. Clean energy has the potential to eliminate smog entirely from our big cities. Is clean, breathable air not worth the effort of moving to renewable energy?

Do you think coal mining for energy use makes sense  

Have you ever seen a coal mine? As a flying instructor and commercial pilot I have flown over plenty of coal mines during the last 30 years of my flying history. I can tell you they are extremely ugly and very damaging to the earth’s topography. I have heard the argument that many coal mines are situated in non-populated areas that no one can see them so why does it matter. 

Let’s take this argument out of the equation again, and let’s assume you have a choice: to dig a huge, dirty hole in the earth that will take thousands of dollars or years to return to its previous state, or, to use that land for something else and make use of a clean energy source. Yes, wind turbines and solar farms may look ugly but they affect the ground and topography a lot less than an open cut mine does and there is no chance of pollutants getting into our waterways.

Around 450 million tonnes of coal is mined in Australia each year, of which 380 million tonnes was exported. Coal provides fuel for about 69% of electricity production in Australia. Coal, natural gas and oil are non-renewable, finite resources, and will run out one day. Do you think it makes sense for us to slowly remove our reliance on coal as an energy course and replace it with clean energy?

Would you prefer that your home was completely independent of the electricity grid and used clean energy? 

Imagine if some time in the future you could have cost-effective solar panels plus battery storage at your home which made your house completely independent and using renewable energy. After the initial outlay, there would be no more rising electricity bills and no more power blackouts. Would this be something you would prefer over the existing system?

Would you prefer to drive an electric car or petrol car? 

Would you prefer to drive a car that needs a lot of servicing and adds to the air pollution in your town, or would you prefer to drive an electric car that is quiet, with no vibration and almost no maintenance?Also if you already had the solar panels on your home, you would have the  possibility of using a charger that uses energy from the sun. Would this be better than your existing car owning experience?

Would you prefer to fly in an electric or piston aircraft?

An electric aircraft would be quiet, with almost no vibration, have little maintenance required and be up to 100 times more reliable than a conventional piston engine which would also lead to better safety.  A flight school could have the entire hangar covered in solar cells to power these aircraft from solar energy. Would this be better than filling up the air with pollution?

Stopping fear, slow and easy wins the race

Ok, hopefully I’ve made my point. I believe much of the anti-clean energy sentiment is due to the natural human tendency to fear change. If change is thrust upon us too quickly, we tend to retreat back to what we know and are comfortable with.

For the coal miner who has spent the last 20 years earning a good income and providing for his family, the thought of losing his job with the introduction of clean energy, is real and confronting.  There are so many businesses and individuals who are living comfortably now with our existing fossil fuel energy grid, so why change?

I believe a slow change to clean energy over a prolonged period of time is the answer. Slow change will allow individuals and companies to adapt and reinvent themselves.  For instance, I have a 10 year plan to replace all of my unleaded petrol aircraft with electric planes by 2029. While there are electric aircraft available now, the cost of this technology is too expensive and the rapid change could place my business at risk.

What if everyone who is earning a reasonable income now,  made a commitment over the next 10 years to replace their cars with electric cars and to upgrade their housing to be completely off-grid with clean solar energy? Within 10 years the cost of electric cars, and solar battery units for houses, will be affordable for most middle to high income individuals, so why not put a plan in place today?

You have nothing to lose and everything to gain! Taking your ego out of the equation

When it comes to the global warming debate, so many of us want to prove the other person wrong: ‘Look at this evidence here!’ ‘No, my evidence is better than your evidence and this why I am right.’ ‘ You are fools for believing in global warming!’ ‘Why are these people not believing the scientists? ‘ It goes on and on and on. 

I often make the joke to atheists that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing in a higher power, because if you’re right (and there is no God) there will be no one to congratulate you on how smart and right you were when you die, but, if you’re wrong, you’re going to miss out.

Having faith is a bit like believing in clean energy. As a society and as individuals, over the long term, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by adopting clean energy whether we believe in global warming or not.

You may or may not be pleased to know that I wrote this blog while using a computer which runs on 100 percent solar energy.  It makes me feel good to know it.

This is why we decided to become carbon neutral at GoFly, not because I really care about what others think or believe, but because I came to the conclusion after a lot of thinking, that paying for carbon offsetting has more benefits than negatives.

If global warming proves to be real, then at least I will know that I did my part to reduce emissions. If it’s not real, then I will know that at least I helped employ some individuals to plant some trees and make the planet less polluted and more beautiful, and that makes me feel good, whether you agree or not.

Damien Wills

CEO GoFly Group

To read more aviation blogs by Damien, click here.

Does this sound like you? You decided to learn to fly and you were enjoying your flying lessons.  At first flying didn’t seem that hard… but then… you started circuit training.

Now you are learning the art of landing and taking off and completing circuit after circuit but something is wrong, and you feel as if you are not progressing. Your brain feels like it’s melting with too much information. You feel that riding a unicycle on a tightrope while juggling ten swords looks like an easier option.

While you may have landed once or twice in a lesson by yourself you just can’t manage to land consistently  safely for the other seven landings in the lesson without the instructor reaching for the controls to save the both of you.

You start to feel frustrated and thoughts such as ‘maybe I’m not cut out to be a pilot’ and ‘why isn’t my Instructor teaching me the right way?’ enter your mind. You start blaming yourself or your instructor or the weather for why you have not mastered this damn landing phase of your flight training (the really important bit!)

A very ironic fact that all students MUST know before they learn how to fly, is that landing an aircraft is not really that hard once you know how! However, learning to land an aircraft can be challenging and difficult.

A lot of potentially great pilots give up during this phase of their flight training. If only they had stuck with it a little bit longer and got through the learning wall – as I like to call it – they would be able to master the landing and realise that once you ‘get it’, you ‘get it’ for life!

Your instructor will be the one who guides you on what controls and inputs to use, the correct procedures, airspeed and radio calls. This will take time and patience.

Below I have outlined nine important tips on getting through this period of your training with the least amount of fuss possible.

1. Go easy on yourself and try not to get frustrated and blame anyone else

One of the easiest ways to delay mastering your landings is to be constantly frustrated with your progress and blaming everyone else for your lack of progress.

Humans are not born with wings, so it stands to reason that learning how to land is not something that comes naturally to us. Learning to land a plane feels like you’re making progress during one lesson and then going backwards. You will have lessons where your flying was at a worse standard than your previous lessons. I had difficulty with learning to land when I first started learning to fly but I am so glad I didn’t give up.

As soon as frustration sets in, your ability to learn diminishes rapidly. When you are frustrated, you also tend to blame the weather or the instructor or the bad night’s sleep you had the night before. The best thing you can do is to expect that it will be difficult at times and to realise that it is just part of the process.

2. Be patient – you will go solo when the instructor tells you you’re safe to go solo

‘My best friend went solo in just over 10 hours years ago in an old Cessna’. I have so many students who tell me this or a similar story and it sets up a false expectation that if their friend went solo in ten hours they  should also be able to. The student feels that if they don’t go solo in close to 10 hours, there must be something wrong with them.

I always tell my students that there is no logic to this type of thinking. How do they even know their friend is telling the truth? And also what sort of training standards did the school have at which he or she learnt to fly? The reality is that everyone learns at different rates: while some students may master the landings fairly quickly, that same student might take longer to reach ‘flight test standard’ later on during their training.

Going solo in minimum time is not an indicator that you are going to be a good pilot. Also, very importantly, you do not want to go solo too early (before you are ready). If you don’t feel confident and you do a hard landing it will really shake your confidence. To go solo you must also be able to handle all emergencies that may happen when flying by yourself – it’s not just about landing the plane.

You must be patient with yourself and your instructor; your instructor wants you to be able to land the aircraft safely and they want you to be the best pilot you can be. One of my friends who works  as a pilot for Virgin airlines took 22 hours to go solo. Obviously Virgin didn’t seem to care about this and neither should you!

3. Mental rehearsal – practice and rehearse your procedures at home in a chair or on a home simulator

I always tell students they should be practicing their procedures at least an hour when they are learning to fly. For instance, if you have a one hour lesson, you should be practicing at home the procedures for that lesson for at least an hour.

All these procedures can be practiced over and over at home. I always suggest sitting down in a chair and visualising that you are flying the circuit. The only way to learn something so it becomes automatic is to repeat, repeat, repeat. Repetition might be boring but it works. I will say it again: the only way to learn something so that it becomes automatic, is to repeat, repeat, repeat (ok, you get the idea).

If you do not do this, you end up spending the majority of your flying lesson trying to remember what comes next as far as procedures, checks and radio calls and  it actually distract you from learning to fly the plane. If you can learn to do these automatically on the ground, it will free up a huge amount of mental space to focus on the landing. If you already have your driving licence, you will know how it becomes automatic after a while, to put on your seat belt, check mirrors, take off the handbrake and ensure you are in the right gear. Sometimes we can drive all the way home from work without even remembering anything about the trip, because we are on ‘autopilot’.

OK, here is my shameless plug: we have created online videos to help teach students their procedures on the GoFly Online website. The videos really help with the students’ muscle memory for procedures and radio calls. If you have a simulator at home you can fly this while practicing your procedures.

4. The right approach – a good scan and getting the approach right every time

You may have heard that a good landing is a direct result of a good final approach. I have found this to be true time and time again with my students. The more stable the approach, the easier it is to get the landing right.

You need to make sure you give your approach the same attention as your landing. You need to be constantly asking yourself: Is my approach profile correct? Am I  too high or too low? How is my airspeed, height and approach profile?

One of the biggest mistakes I see students make is getting tunnel vision; they either start focusing on the airspeed or just the runway. Once you focus on only the airspeed, you tend to lose the approach profile. I always recommend a good scan of your attitude, airspeed then runway. This way you are keeping an eye on everything and not just one element.  If you’re not happy with the approach then I suggest you adopt my number 6 tip!

5. Your eyes land the plane

While it is your hands and feet that really control how the plane lands, you will never be able to land well unless your eyes are in the correct position. This means that as soon as you flare (or some instructors suggest even before this moment) your eyes should move from the threshold to the end of the runway/horizon. The reason is simple: if you are not looking towards the end of the runway you will get a ground rush and most likely pull back on the controls too quickly.

The other issue is that you have to have good depth perception to know how far you are off the ground at this height. If your eyes are looking forward you will be able to notice when the aircraft is sinking to the ground and this is your prompt to gently start pulling back on the controls.

This will only happen if your eyes are focused on the end of the runway/horizon. If one of my students has been doing great landings then suddenly one of their landings is terrible, nine times out of ten it’s because their eyes have not moved to the end of the runway. So remind yourself as soon as you start to flare: eyes FORWARD!

6. Every landing is a failed missed approach

This one is big. I will send a student solo sooner if their landings are safe (but are not necessarily always perfect) and if they know WHEN to go around and conduct a missed approach when things go wrong OVER a student who does perfect landings but is SLOW to go around (missed approach) when things go wrong.

The ability to initiate a missed approach when you balloon or bounce or when your airspeed is low or you are not lined up straight with the runway just prior to landing, is a sign that you’re getting close to going solo stage. I always tell my students that ‘every landing is a failed missed approach’. What this means is that you should be ready to go around at any time. Also it’s perfectly OK to go around if you’re not comfortable with any part of the landing. This is a sign of good airmanship.

If you’re confident about doing a missed approach and understand that it is a normal aspect of every approach then you will not feel so anxious about the landing if things go wrong.

7. Get your instructor to demonstrate regularly what the landing should look like

A lot of instructors think that the only way for a student to learn how to land is to keep the student on the controls until they get it right. While this obviously works (we learn by doing) the issue here is that over time if the student keeps practicing and practicing and they are not successfully landing correctly, they may have actually forgotten what a good safe landing looks like. The Instructor may have demonstrated how to land two lessons ago and the student may have had a week or more break between their flying lessons and may have actually forgotten what it looks like to land.

I always like to start off with every circuit lesson, no matter how many lessons that student has done, by demonstrating what a good circuit, approach and landing looks like so it is clear in their mind. Often if the student is having difficulty, then I might get them to come on the controls and we do the landing together so they can feel and see how a correct landing is done. Do not be afraid to speak up to your flight instructor and ask them to demonstrate a landing again if you are feeling frustrated with your progress. It will give you a break and allow you to watch and learn without the pressure of actually flying it yourself.

8. DO NOT LOOK through the propellor

Most students have issues with landing straight. You cannot land smoothly or anticipate the sink correctly if your aircraft is not landing straight.  With most single engine aircraft with side by side seating, there is a tendency for the student pilot to look through the propellor spinner (in the middle of the aircraft) when they are looking forward to the end of the runway during the flare.

This is because the student is not sitting in the middle of the aircraft so the student tries to align the propellor with the centre of the runway. Due to parallax error the student always lands with the aircraft yawing left during the landing.

To stop this I always recommend imagining your seat is a magic seat flying through the air, ignore the prop and look directly ahead of the aircraft. You can also practice this while taxiing on the taxiway or runway to get the straight visualisation alignment correct.

9. Do not be in a hurry to land

My last tip is a simple one: never be in a rush to land, even when your bladder is bursting. When you rush the landing, you stuff the landing.

When we teach a student pilot to land we are not actually teaching them to land. We are actually teaching them to fly the aircraft as long as possible just above the runway until the aircraft settles itself gently onto the ground. We firstly fly level with the runway after the flare, then once the aircraft starts to sink, we ease back on the control column until the aircraft gently touches the ground (that’s the plan anyway).

The main problems during landing are not landing straight (not using enough or too much rudder), pulling back too much during the hold-off sinking phase and ballooning into the air, or, not easing back on the controls enough and then landing flat and hard.

I have discovered over the last 10 years of teaching landings that when I tell the students not to rush their landing, and to keep the aircraft flying as long as possible, the landings will improve dramatically. When you rush you are trying to get the aircraft on the ground more quickly and this can only end in a very bad landing or even worse, a damaged aircraft.

A lot of rushed landings happen when a student lands too far down the runway and they think they are running out of available runway to land. This is why it is vital to ‘go around’ if your approach is not correct.

I hope some of these tips have helped you. Remember, it doesn’t matter whether you go solo in 15 hours or in 25 hours – once you ‘get it’, I promise you it will just become easier and easier with time. The great news is that once you have mastered landing, the feeling of accomplishment is something you will never forget.  I still remember my first solo – 30 years ago! – like it was yesterday. It is a memory and a feeling that no one can ever take from you. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it and it would not be so fulfilling and rewarding.

Happy and safe flying!

Damien Wills

CEO GoFly Group