Last year MTV pointed out that the new ACS are an improvement. I finally got around to reading them and I agree with Mike. The objective, knowledge, and risk management sections of each task are pretty general, allowing instructor and examiner judgement (think choices) in specific application of skills. Allowance is made for acceleration in ground effect and inclusion of energy management concepts. Speeds are still specified in the skills section, but with greater +,-,fluidity. There is recognition of high speed loss of control accidents in the wording, "not more than 1.3 Vso."

I am completely out of the primary flight training loop. Am I just thinking wishfully here. Can the FAA now work from general principles, like those taught by Wolfgang Langewiesche in Stick and Rudder, to application of those principles in more specific but still fluid skills? Can safe maneuvering flight techniques be included in that skills set?

The Task Short Field Takeoff and Maximum Performance Climb Objective is to determine that the applicant exhibits satisfactory knowledge, risk management, and skills associated with (task). Under Risk Management, he is to identify, assess, and mitigate risks encompassing...Low altitude maneuvering including stall, spin, or CFIT.

While the student will still be trained and examined on the skill of acceleration in ground effect to Vx and climb at Vx+10/-5, does this not allow some important work arounds for efficiency and safety? Could he not also be trained to use a bit more runway, when available, to accelerate in low ground effect to a safer low altitude maneuvering airspeed? Where the centerline extended goes over the obstruction that requires Vx but a turn, with sufficient airspeed to be safe, could allow a much shallower egress, could he not mitigate stall, spin, or CFIT?

You active instructors are doing this. We old guys had to cheat to cover this kind of risk management. Will what I have described here fly, or will flying still have to be taught separately from testing?

Two helpful, over the old PTS, changes are in the short field task. In the knowledge area, we are to understand the stabilized approach to include energy management concepts. The skills area still wants round out and hold off, but 1.3 Vso is now no more than 1.3 Vso.

I hope energy management concepts includes the apparent brisk walk rate of closure short final to touchdown on the numbers and other power pitch methods to at least mitigate the excessive airspeed in the round out and hold off technique.

These energy management concepts, including the energy management 1g turn, are not dangerous or difficult. The law of primacy is a bump in the road to be overcome for those trained strictly adhering to the old PTS when maneuvering flight was outlawed rather than trained. Hopefully this new ACS will allow primacy in low altitude orientation as well as high altitude orientation. We have to survive the trip up to high enough to safely stall altitude. Energy management in the first thousands feet will save lives.

Please keep on writing and sharing that knowledge Jim .
Merry Christmas Brother !

The problem when we who are less organized teach flying by reference to feel, sound, and even illusions like the apparent brisk walk rate of closure, we cannot support these empirical truths with numbers. The aviation community, especially those in authority, have great difficulty believing in things that are not supported by numbers.

Yet, look at rudder control of longitudional alignment with a target or elevator control of pitch attitude to level and maintain level in low ground effect. Neither the organized numerically factual instructor nor the more artistic one knows the exact heading to stay on the centerline or the exact pitch attitude to stay in low ground effect without touching down. Both instructors will have to use some trial by error method to find equilibrium, if equalibrium actually exists. Neither dynamic proactive control movement nor pressure to creep up to desired alignment or pitch attitude is numerically definable.

Unfortunately beaureaucracies tend to shy away from difficult to define truth and scientists tend to shy away from belief. Experience, however, tends to support either truth or belief that accomplishes the mission. Both more IFR and integrated contact and instrument flying have reduced accidents. That they have failed to reduce fatalities is now being addressed by the FAA. This is commendable.