I was shocked to learn that one of the largest flight-training companies—perhaps the largest flight academy—in the U.S. doesn’t allow pilot students to use the autopilot, even for advanced ratings and certificates. 

This information came from a graduate of the program. He was sharing his rocky experience training with a regional airline after graduating with all his certificates through instrument and multiengine flight instructor in one year. Unfortunately—and this isn’t unusual—the intense simulator-based training and initial operating experience at the airline proved extremely challenging.

There are reasons why this is happening and many promising candidates wash out or resign before they are forced out so a failure doesn’t show up on their records. One problem is that these new pilots aren’t getting any real flying seasoning because they are stuck in their flight academy bubble, even as flight instructors. They have minimal experience flying aircraft other than the types they learn in, or flying at more airports, in complex airspace that they aren’t used to. This all comes with experience, which they don’t yet have but desperately need. 

Another problem is the fabulous avionics in the training airplanes. Most trainers these days are equipped with sophisticated glass cockpits, often Garmin G1000 systems with super-capable autopilots, synthetic vision systems, and no traditional flight management system (FMS) control-display unit (CDU). This factor does not facilitate the training these pilots need for their airline jobs.

How can I say that? Shame on me for suggesting that glass cockpits in trainers are bad. 

That’s not what I’m saying. The problem is that these trainers with their modern avionics are not suited to preparing pilots to fly airliners with avionics that are generations older than those in the trainers. Airlines do not like to upgrade their airplanes, and avionics changes in airliners do not keep up with the latest technology after the airplane is manufactured. So there are thousands of aircraft out there that still have stick-figure moving maps, traditional CDU FMS interfaces, and—still!—no synthetic vision. 

Here’s a fun experiment (although it happens for real in airline training departments all the time): Take a pilot who has trained exclusively in a G1000-equipped airplane and who hasn’t been allowed to use the autopilot. Put them in a CRJ flight simulator. Ask them to initialize the FMS, then input a flight plan. Put them in the air, then give them a revised flight plan and a runway change at the destination while the airplane is already near the terminal area. This is a setup for failure, even after training has occurred. 

It seems counterproductive for a new pilot to go through a year of intensive training, pass all the written and practical tests, and then fail to progress when exposed to the airline’s training program. Sure, some of these pilots might not have what it takes to fly for an airline (which makes me wonder how they made it through their flight academy). But isn’t there a way to prepare them better for what to expect when they get hired by an airline?

I should point out that these G1000-trained pilots would probably adapt quickly to a modern business jet’s avionics because most of these aircraft have similarly modern avionics suites. Many, in fact, have Garmin G3000 and G5000 avionics, which are a simple step up from G1000. The latest Collins, Genesys, Honeywell, and Universal avionics are increasingly easy to use and less FMS CDU-dependent. 

But, let’s get back to the wide gap between training airplanes and the airliners that these new pilots will be flying. Any flight academy that has some kind of partnership with an airline ought to find out what kind of avionics the new pilots will be using and then add some focused training on those systems, especially the FMS, before letting them graduate. 

This is not a heavy lift. On my desktop flight simulator (X-Plane 12), I have the incredible study-level HotStart Challenger 650, which is almost the same avionics interface-wise as a CRJ. This simulated business jet costs less than $150 and is as accurate as the software in a full-flight simulator, without the motion base, and it even includes CPDLC (datalink communications). Any flight academy could set up a desktop simulator with the HotStart Challenger, the Honeycomb yoke and jet throttle quadrant, and rudder pedals for less than $2,500. I know it doesn’t include the knobs and buttons, but that could be done if truly necessary. 

With this kind of setup, of course, it would be necessary to create a formal syllabus and teach proper start-from-dark-cockpit, flight planning, in-flight, arrival, and approach procedures, including the hand-jamming on the CDU that is required for a last-minute runway change. 

The big question this whole subject raises is: Why aren’t we teaching what our new pilots need to know to help them at this key step in their careers? And why aren’t we introducing them to the equipment they will be using instead of assuming they’ll be able to transition smoothly from a modern trainer’s amazingly capable glass cockpit to a frankly uninspiring bunch of ancient avionics?

As for the autopilot, I think it’s criminal not to train new pilots how to use one of the most effective safety tools ever invented. How does anyone expect these new pilots to adapt to flying with an autopilot when they get into the airline simulator for the first time unless they have incorporated autopilot use into their flying process and use the autopilot as a natural extension of their flying skills? 

Safety expert and pilot Steve Green explains this better than me. In the Pilot's Discretion podcast (#59, "Why airplane accidents are not just stories"), understanding how the aircraft's systems work is essential. "The more you understand the systems, the more residual attention you’re going to have," he said. Residual attention is what pilots need so they can focus on other aspects of flying safely. "You really need to have a relationship with the automation. You can't monitor it if you don't understand it."