New CFI - Wings Program Specifics Question

[pilotman2105]

Got a student that wants to do the Wings Program. So, being the diligent instructor that I'm trying to become, I located a copy of 61-91H and read it.

I've always heard that 3 hours are required by this AC. However, it states for the requirements:

(1) One hour of flight training to include basic airplane control stalls, turns, and other maneuvers directed toward mastery of the airplane.​

​

(2) One hour of flight training to include approaches, takeoffs, and landings, including crosswind. soft field, and short field techniques.​

(3) One hour of instrument training in an airplane, FAA-approved aircraft simulator or training device.​

​

So far so good. But I'm left wondering if portions of section (1) can be done concurrently with portions of section (3), thus making the total time required to complete the specific phase of wings less than 3 hours.​

In more general terms, has anyone else assisted a student in getting through a phase of wings, and if so, how did you approach it? Was it more of a "sit back and see what the student can do before you say anything" (ie: BFR/Checkride) approach or was it a "let's get through this together/I'm going to help you do these things." Obviously the goal is for the student to learn something from it, and I'm not going to be a total hardass. I'm just wondering if it is more of a hands off or hands on approach for the instructor.​

And finally, how did you approach it from a scheduling standpoint. I'm doing this through a Wings Weekend, so we're scheduled for two 2-hours blocks. I'm figuring a half hour of airwork, half hour of takeoffs and landings, and half hour of instrument work for each session.​

Thoughts?​

 

[midlifeflyer]

So far so good. But I'm left wondering if portions of section (1) can be done concurrently with portions of section (3), thus making the total time required to complete the specific phase of wings less than 3 hours.

Everyone's looking for shortcuts, even when the training is solely for proficiency reasons. <<sigh>> If you want a shortcut, just give the pilot a FR. Might be fun to watch those full stalls on base to final turns though. (Especially with the FAA there and watching )

In more general terms, has anyone else assisted a student in getting through a phase of wings, and if so, how did you approach it? Was it more of a "sit back and see what the student can do before you say anything" (ie: BFR/Checkride) approach or was it a "let's get through this together/I'm going to help you do these things."

I'm not sure what the difference is. I usually want to see how a pilot is doing before I start ordering her around correcting things. But I guess it depends on the pilot, what the pilot wants and how proficient the pilot feels in given maneuvers. The smart pilot schedules these sessions to take advantage of instruction - it's quicker and cheaper to go the flight review process. So, a pilot might, for example, call a CFI on an especially windy day to get some extra crosswind training.

And finally, how did you approach it from a scheduling standpoint. I'm doing this through a Wings Weekend, so we're scheduled for two 2-hours blocks. I'm figuring a half hour of airwork, half hour of takeoffs and landings, and half hour of instrument work for each session.

Other than Wings Weekends, my scheduling is flexible. Nothing says that the 3 hours have to be close to each other in time, and nothing says that they they have to be with the same CFI. So that gal who calls for the crosswind work? Maybe she hasn't even heard of the program. We spend the hour, I tell her about the program and give the logbook endorsement, telling her I'll be glad to sign that hour off on here Wings application after she goes to a seminar.

For the weekend you're doing, I like the way you are breaking it up. It lets you review things on the ground between sessions. I'm sure your clients will get a lot more out of it that way.

 

[pilotman2105]

Thanks midlifeflyer. I was hoping you would chime in with your thoughts on this.

Sorry to mislead on the "shortcut" thing. I guess that I was just looking at the time constraints we have and trying to figure out if we can fit everything in given the short timespan, student attention span, etc, etc.

So perhaps I've misunderstood the entire intent of this program. I've always been under the impression that it's a way to do a BFR without the pressure of having to conform to the PTS before getting the sign-off. You seem to make it out as "hey, you need training on x subject, let's go do it for an hour. Afterward, we'll have it count towards the Wings Program and then if you have anything else later down the road, we'll work on it, and eventually get a phase completed."

Makes more sense now.

I appreciate the help.

 

[sky37d]

When I did my BFR, we took that approach. I said, hey, I'm not as good as I once was. Let's do some dual, and when you think I have enough, let's call it a BFR. Did IPC concurrently. Had fun. Relaxing, flying with someone, able to sharpen you up. Wings is about that. Increase your proficiency. I had attended enough seminars to qualify for years, but wanted the one on one to improve skills. The 3 hours are a minimum, and should be approached that way, IMHO.

 

[midlifeflyer]

So perhaps I've misunderstood the entire intent of this program. I've always been under the impression that it's a way to do a BFR without the pressure of having to conform to the PTS before getting the sign-off. You seem to make it out as "hey, you need training on x subject, let's go do it for an hour. Afterward, we'll have it count towards the Wings Program and then if you have anything else later down the road, we'll work on it, and eventually get a phase completed."

I guess it's a chicken/egg thing. We know that unlike paid pilots, the typical GA pilot has very little recurrency training - with the FR the only real requirement. The FAA's goal was to encourage more recurrency training without making it a regulatory requirement. As AC 61-91H itself says

==============================
Regular proficiency training is essential to the safety of all pilots and their passengers. The objective of the Pilot Proficiency Award Program is to provide pilots with the opportunity to establish and participate in a personal recurrent training program. Aviation safety is a cooperative effort of all members of the aviation community. The FAA encourages each pilot to establish a regular recurrent training program and invites pilots to participate in the Pilot Proficiency Award Program
==============================

Of course, since there's no "stick", the FAA threw in a carrot: Go through the program and it will reset the 24 month flight review clock.

I don't know what the current stats are but at one time the program was boasting a zero fatal accident rate for Wings pilots.

 

[pilotman2105]

One more question. Just sat down to come up with a checklist to make sure that the topics that are required per the AC are actually done and for something to keep in my records. I ran across the part that says:

"If the applicant is not qualified and current in accordance with 61.57 for instrument flight, 1 additional hour of basic instrument training with emphasis on partial panel approaches, inadvertent penetration into instrument meteorological conditions (180 turn), descent into visual meteorological conditions, and safe operations shall be accomplished in an airplane... for each odd-numbered award phase."

I understand the intent, but purely as a CYA measure, is that saying that someone without an instrument rating (ie: not qualified) has to do partial panel approaches? Are the listed items to be covered simply recommendations and not regulatory?

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I'm just trying to have all the bases covered prior to showing up.

 

[Axel]

"...shall be accomplished in an airplane...

Says "shall". Shall means shall.

We all love to hate the FAA, but you gotta give credit for the wings program. This has really done GA a lot of good. The requirements provide training that directly address the specific areas of operation that cause the most problems. Do it all, even if it takes more than the requisite 3 hours. You may save lives.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I understand the intent, but purely as a CYA measure, is that saying that someone without an instrument rating (ie: not qualified) has to do partial panel approaches? Are the listed items to be covered simply recommendations and not regulatory?

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I'm just trying to have all the bases covered prior to showing up.

I've never seen any official interpretation, but the language seems pretty clear that in odd wings phases, the FAA wants pilots who are not instrument rated, or are instrument rated but are not current, to receive some enhanced training.

What you may be reading too much into is the "partial panel approach" concept. This is strictly a FWIW personal opinion with nothing whatsoever to back it up.

Since the only regulatory thing that the Wings program can be use in place of is a FR, not an IPC, the thrust of the Wings program is it's application to =all= pilots. While it would certainly be a good idea to include instrument PTS tasks in the case of an instrument rated pilot, I don't think that the AC is telling us to teach VFR-only pilots how to fly IAPs, let alone partial panel IAPs in the traditional instrument training sense. As I read it, the thrust of the additional hour is to focus, as Axel said, on a problem area. So for "partial panel" work, I think we're talking about a situation in which there is inadvertent flight into IMC and one or more flight instruments fail and the pilot still has to make that 180 and get down to "approach" an airport. If you've seen some pilots try to land with the ASI covered, you can imagine how valuable a simple pitot clog would be to a non-instrument pilot flying under the hood.

 

[pilotman2105]

Good call. Thanks again for the help.

Axel, I agree that the Wings Program is good to GA. All the information and satistics that I can find certainly supports that. I'm really looking forward to getting involved with it, and hope that my student(s) are as enthusiastic about this coming weekend as I am!