I might as well start off the new year by stirring the pot and probably raising the ire of a few of my flight instructor colleagues. The focus of this month's newsletter is on instructional accidents. Wait! Don't click off if you have all the certificates and ratings you need. Everyone is required to fly with an instructor periodically. Your choice of an instructor for your proficiency flying is perhaps even more important than your selection of a primary instructor. Most instructional accidents, particularly the fatal ones, don't involve primary training.

We will concern ourselves with non-commercial, fixed wing operations only. The most recent Nall report, which is for the calendar year 2008, indicates that there were 194 instructional accidents. That accounts for 15% of the total accidents that year. Of those accidents, 19 were fatal accounting for 31 total deaths. That represents 7% of the total non-commercial, fixed-wing deaths for that year.

The report points out that instructional flying accounted for 20% of the total flying time but only 15% of the total accidents, so having an instructor onboard makes flying safer. Really? I'm not so sure I agree. Sure, instructional flying typically involves maneuvering close to the edge of the envelope, lots of takeoffs and landings, simulated emergencies, and other things that are a bit more risky than just tooling along on a family outing. But having an instructor along shouldn't improve our accident rate by 5%. It should improve it by 90% or more.

The burden of decreasing the number of instructional accidents falls on both the instructors and on the people taking instruction. Lets start with the CFIs. If instructors want to be respected as aviation professionals, we have to earn that respect by our actions and our demeanor. A good start is to admit that we are not experts in all things aviation. Surgeons are respected professionals. But does a heart surgeon also do knee replacements? Not likely. So a skilled primary instructor who is a master at taking a student through solo and private pilot certification shouldn't necessarily jump into a Malibu to perform a flight review or Wings instruction. The airline instructor who can lead a newly hired airline pilot through V1 cuts shouldn't necessarily jump into a Seneca to help a friend practice engine-out procedures. Nor should the instructor specializing in Bonanza or Mooney flying be quick to strap on the LSA and try to show how it's done. Instructors need to realize and admit to our limitations.

Pilots taking instruction must also share the burden of selecting an instructor whose experience and credentials suit the type of flying to be done. This is harder for the brand new student. Since most folks reading this newsletter are not brand new students, I won't discuss that aspect here. But I wrote an article on that subject a few years ago and it can be found here for those who are interested.

Pilots seeking more advanced instruction or proficiency training should be very selective in choosing an instructor. They should meet with the instructor and discuss training goals and methods to be used before actually scheduling instruction. This provides the pilot-under-instruction with an easy out if the instructor doesn't seem to be a good fit. It's much more difficult to cancel the flight once it makes it to the schedule book. That initial meeting should include a frank discussion of expectations, the instructor's experience as it relates to the kind of training, the instructor's training philosophy regarding standards, acceptable weather conditions for training, a proposed training schedule, and estimates of time and money required.

It is entirely appropriate and recommended to do some research on the instructor before making a commitment to fly. Spend a bit of time around the airport and mention the potential instructor's name. Bad news travels fast and any negatives about a CFI will probably evoke a discussion. It's also appropriate to ask the instructor to provide some references. Try to talk to at least a couple of his or her customers to hear what they have to say. Any comments such as, "He's a bit of a hot dog, but a good instructor" should send you running in the opposite direction.

Finally, make sure you are getting your money's worth. Make sure the objective of the proposed training is to make you a better pilot, not just get a certificate or rating or signed-off for a flight review or Wings training.

The instructor was seriously injured and the student pilot received minor injuries when this amateur-built Dragonfly Mark II crashed during takeoff from the North Las Vegas Airport.

In an interview with the FAA inspector, the CFI reported that he was at the controls during the entire flight and that this was his first experience in the accident make and model airplane. He stated that he thought that there was a malfunction with the rudder, which prohibited him from maintaining the runway centerline; he additionally, stated that he could not reduce the throttle input because the controls were stuck.

Several witnesses observed the airplane on the departure roll from runway 12R. They reported that the airplane collided with a runway light and bounced down the surface, eventually becoming airborne. The airplane reached about 200 feet above ground level and rolled/banked right. They did not observe the impact sequence.

According to the FAA inspector who visited the airport following the accident, an approximate 10-inch portion of the airplane's canard was found in the vicinity of a broken runway light. The FAA inspector stated that skid marks were observed on the runway leading up to the broken light.

A post accident examination by an aircraft mechanic revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunction or failure. He established flight control continuity on all three axes.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: The CFI's failure to maintain directional control of the airplane during takeoff.

It's not easy to find an instructor who has experience in a rather unusual amateur built airplane. It's a pretty solid bet that if the airplane looks unusual, it also has some unusual flying characteristics to go with it. So choosing a flight instructor with zero experience in the airplane is probably not the best choice. Just about every amateur built airplane type has some sort of user group associated with it. That's a good place to start for a CFI referral.

Click here to read the full accident report.

This tragic accident cost the lives of the flight instructor and the private pilot taking instruction.

The certified flight instructor and the private pilot were returning to the airport after completing a flight review. Data obtained from the onboard primary flight display revealed that as the airplane approached the airport, it entered a snap roll maneuver, and began to descend. The airplane did not have enough altitude to recover and subsequently collided with terrain inverted approximately one-quarter of a mile away from the airport. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed there were no pre-mishap anomalies.

The evidence indicates that the snap roll maneuver was not intentional, but a result of an uncoordinated accelerated stall while turning onto the base leg of the traffic pattern.

The flight instructor had about 1438 total flight hours, but no record of previous experience in the make and model airplane could be found. The private pilot had about 1327 total flight hours with about 230 in the SR22 aircraft.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: The flight instructor's failure to maintain control of the airplane, which resulted in an inadvertent stall while maneuvering.

We can't be sure who was flying at the time of the accident or exactly what happened, but the private pilot was reasonably experienced in the airplane. It seems unlikely that he would inadvertently initiate an accelerated stall considering his experience in the airplane. If the pilot was flying at the time of the stall, it seems reasonable to assume that his actions were in some way prompted by the instructor. Or, perhaps the pilot was allowing the instructor to make a landing and aircraft unfamiliarity got the best of him. Whatever happened during those last few seconds of the flight, it seems likely that an instructor who had been properly trained in the Cirrus and more familiar with its flying characteristics might have avoided this outcome.

Click here to read the full accident report.

Living in a society is difficult. Rules are created and are constantly being revised. The rights of individuals must be balanced against the good of the larger group. I tend to resent government infringing on my individual rights but I realize that many things must be regulated in the interest of safety and the general welfare. So I generally get the whole rules thing. I'm glad I'm not responsible for making the rules of society because I recognize that a certain portion of the people won't be happy with whatever rules are made.

We have plenty of rules in general aviation. Some seem quite strict, such as operating in certain kinds of airspace. Many seem quite lenient. For example, a pilot can let many years pass without ever handling the controls of an airplane, take a flight physical, do a minimal brush-up with a flight instructor, get an endorsement for a flight review, and head out across the country with an airplane load of people. The flight review must consist of at least one hour of ground instruction and one hour of flight instruction. As long as the pilot made three takeoffs and three landings, recent experience requirements have been met. There is relatively little enforcement and we generally operate under voluntary compliance. It is very unlikely that we will ever be asked to show our certificates, log books or evidence of required airplane maintenance unless we bend the metal or are observed buzzing or doing something else that draws attention. Most pilots are responsible and the FAA says that only about 5% of general aviation accidents are found to have an element of non-compliance with any regulations.

A similar situation exists regarding flight instructors. The vast majority of active flight instructors comprise a skilled, knowledgeable, responsible, and dedicated group. Keeping skills and knowledge current is just part of their being. That's fortunate because many regulations regarding flight instructors are quite lax. A CFI may be inactive as an instructor and as a pilot for many years. The instructor certificate expires every two years, but can be easily renewed by taking a weekend clinic or by taking an online, sixteen hour course. (I renewed that way two years ago. I spent a whopping seven hours in front of the computer, passed the quiz, and was renewed by mail.) No actual flying is required. If the flight instructor certificate is allowed to lapse, then a flight test and oral exam is required for renewal. Strict? Well, you decide. If an individual is a flight instructor in airplanes (single and multiengine), helicopters, balloons, and airships, the flight test may be taken in any of the aircraft in which he or she is rated and the rest are renewed as well. Oh yes, if an airplane is chosen for the test, it need not be a complex airplane. By the way, an instrument instructor rating is automatically renewed by this process even though no instrument work has been done during the flight test.

For single-engine airplanes, there is no requirement that the instructor has ever flown that make and model of airplane before. Multiengine airplanes require that an instructor have at least five hours of PIC time in the same make and model, but there is no requirement as to how recent that time must be.

If the CFI is to act as pilot-in-command, then he or she must have made three takeoffs and three landings in the preceding ninety days in an airplane of the same class and must also have a valid Class III or better medical certificate. If the pilot-under-instruction can act as PIC, then the instructor need not be current and need not possess a medical certificate. Why would a pilot who can legally act as PIC need an instructor aboard? There are several possibilities. The pilot may need a flight review, Wings instruction, dual instruction to meet insurance requirements, or may be just wanting to become more proficient. And guess what? These are exactly the circumstances under which most instructional accidents happen. And, no, I didn't forget to mention that the instructor had to become instrument current to provide instrument instruction. If the CFII makes sure that airplane remains VFR, there is no requirement for the instructor to be instrument current.

So why am I explaining all this? Am I arguing for more strict regulation regarding flight instructor certificate renewals? Absolutely not. My purpose is to make pilots aware of that the fact that some initials beginning with the letter "C" after a pilot's name or certificate number only guarantee that the individual was knowledgeable and proficient regarding that aircraft category and class at one time, but not necessarily now. If the individual is an instrument instructor, then he or she was knowledgeable and proficient regarding instrument flying at some time in the past, but not necessarily right now. Obtaining instructional services is a "buyer-beware" environment and I simply want pilots to realize that and make wise choices.

All aircraft accidents are tragic. But when a person seeks to become a better pilot by engaging the services of a flight instructor and then is involved in an accident while receiving instruction, that is beyond tragic. I call on all instructors to take a realistic look at the kind of instructing we are doing and to soul-search whether or not we are truly competent to be doing that. I implore pilots to carefully research and select instructors whose experience is appropriate for the kind of instruction to be done.

I will stress again that the problems described above are not widespread. But there are enough instructional accidents to warrant taking a closer look at how we all do business.