NIFA Challenges Pilots Past Bare Minimums

Discussion over the state of professional pilot training is continuing several weeks after we posted Pro Pilot Training Evolving to Industry Needs.  Proficiency-based training has been a central theme, as has educating pilots past the bare minimums set forth by the FAA. I knew examples of this existed, but I couldn’t remember where until an online article by the Terra Haute, Indiana, Tribune-Star, ISU Hosting Annual National Intercollegiate Flying Association’s National Competition, jogged my memory.

If you’ve never heard of NIFA, it “was formed for the purposes of developing and advancing aviation education; to promote, encourage and foster safety in aviation; to promote and foster communications and cooperation between aviation students, educators, educational institutions and the aviation industry; and to provide an arena for collegiate aviation competition.”

NIFA members are extra-curricular flight teams at 77 two- and four-year collegiate aviation programs nationwide. They are in 11 regions, and the top finishers in the regional Safety and Flight Evaluation Conferences are this week (May 17-22) competing in the 90th annual national Safecon. In the 1990s I reported on a half-dozen of them, and seeing that the event rules are relatively unchanged, it is still my opinion that these aeronauts are aviation’s best hope for the future. Looking at NIFA’s sponsors, from Cessna and Sporty’s to NBAA and name-brand regional and major carriers, the industry seems to think so, too. 

The most concise explanation why this is true is that these students, most of whom are just a year or two into their aeronautical educations, embody the “beginner’s mind,” as defined by Michael Maya Charles in his exquisite book, Artful Flying.  For them, the minimum performance parameters spelled out in the FAA’s Practical Test Standards are not a final exam but a place to start.

Regional or national, each Safecon is a combination of seven flight and six ground events that challenges a pilot’s knowledge and skill. Power-off landings is a perfect example. The target is not 60-foot-tall runway numbers. Landing within this distance wouldn’t qualify a pilot for the team. No, these pilots aim to put the main wheels on a 4-inch-wide chalk line. Judges stand alongside the runway to measure the touchdown point, which rarely exceeds a foot or two. The top finishers are usually separated by inches. To make sure the engine is at idle, another judge points a directional microphone at each plane as a pilot pulls the power to idle on downwind when abeam the line.  Pilots can “clear” the engine once on the base leg. They can use flaps, but not below 100 feet AGL on final.

In the navigation event students fly a multiple-leg cross-country of 70 to 120 miles. Pilots fly with a safety observer, and using any technology beyond a sectional chart, plotter, pencil, and E-6B is disqualifying. “Each contestant must submit a flight plan before take-off, including, but not limited to, the estimated time en route for each leg, estimated total elapsed time, and estimated fuel consumption.” Points are assessed for the difference between what’s planned and actual, and for other deviations, such as not flying directly over a turn point, where a judge sits, looking skyward. Lowest score wins.

What’s important here is that these aviators are flying with all of their senses except, maybe, taste. One checks the other, does the slipstream noise coincide with the airspeed and the stick force, and does progress across the ground in the given wind assure success, or is a more expedient turn to base needed?

Similar thought processes are at work in the ground events such as ground trainer (a flight-training device), aircraft preflight inspection, and Simulated Comprehensive Aircraft Navigation (SCAN), where competitors employ a non-programmable flight computer, plotter, and pencil to find the answers to a 40-question exam created by the event’s most demanding judges.

What makes these aviators special is that they volunteered for it, and all that I’ve met relish the challenges presented. Perhaps the best comparison to their shared spirit is found among the volunteers who serve in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Maybe that’s the key to attracting those who will make good professional pilots. Make it tougher, not easier. Challenge them to be better than the bare minimums. Teach them to be an extension of the airplane and metaphysically integrated into the airspace, and if they aren’t capable, say so and send them on their way. Aerial  automatons—those who want to push buttons and levels and twist knobs to deliver the numbers demanded by a voice on the radio—need not apply. — Scott Spangler