Transport Canada’s published flight test standards for PPLs changed earlier this year in a couple of interesting ways. The standards are published in document TP13723 and the latest version, the fifth edition, was released in March of this year (2019).

Some of the changes are listed in the introduction, but there are some other small changes through the body of the document that might be significant. Here’s my take on what’s new.

Stabilized approach

It’s now a requirement for all approaches to land to be “stabilized”, at the latest by 200 feet AGL. If your approach isn’t stable by then, a go-around is mandatory. The definition of “stable approach”, which is new, is given on page i of the document, the important points of which are:

• Briefings and checklists complete
• Aircraft must be in the proper landing configuration appropriate for wind and runway conditions
• Appropriate power settings applied
• Maximum sink rate of 1,000 feet per minute
• Speed within +10/-5 knots of the reference speed
• Only small heading and pitch changes required
• Stable by 200 feet AGL

This all seems positive to me; if your approach to land doesn’t meet these criteria then it’s deficient in some way and you should be working to fix it. Previous editions of the standard required approaches to be “stabilized” but didn’t elaborate on what that meant.

Landings with full flaps

This is a new requirement. Previous editions of the flight test standard didn’t specify the use of flaps at all during landings. Now, the requirement is that “Unless strong crosswinds or gusts are present, all landings will be executed with full flap“.

My opinion is that this is an unfortunate change; the choice of flap setting for landing should be the perogative of the Pilot in Command on any particular flight, and the choice should depend on the aircraft type, runway length and conditions, weather and to some extent, personal preference.

For older nose-gear equipped single engine Cessna aircraft (the 1X2) series where flaps extend to 40° my preference for a “regular” landing is 20° of flap extension. It’s significantly easier to keep the nose wheel elevated during the landing roll to protect it, and a late go-around (if required) is easier and safer with partial flap. I also note the very first sentence in the Cessna 172M and N Pilot’s Operating Handbook, under the topic of “normal landing”, is “Normal landing approaches can be made with power-on or power off with any flap setting desired”.

My own preference is to reserve full flap for short runways where the extra aerodynamic braking assists to shorten the first part of the landing roll. The purported benefit of full flaps in lowering the touchdown speed is so small as to be insignificant (compared to flaps at 20°) that I believe it’s outweighed by the other benefits I mentioned. This particularly concerns me when a student lands on an unprepared surface, a topic covered in PPL exercise 18, the soft-field landing. Speaking now as the owner of a Cessna 182, I would strongly recommend only partial flaps when landing this aircraft on a rough or soft surface, as the extra nose-up attitude is of great assistance in keeping the nose wheel off ground as long as possible.

Changes to stall recovery procedure

Previous editions of the flight test guide had a performance criterion (on which marking is based) of avoiding excessive altitude loss. This has been removed, and the new wording requires the candidate to “smoothly recover using control applications in the correct sequence by promptly reducing the angle of attack to break the stall and levelling the wings“. The new reference to reducing the AoA I think is a very positive change in emphasis; reducing the angle of attack should definitely be the pilot’s priority in recovering from a stall, and is actually the right way to avoid excessive altitude loss in any event.

Slow flight

Previous Flight Test Guides required a candidate to demonstrate slow flight “near minimum controllable airspeed as indicated by a near-constant stall warning.” The new standard requires the candidate to “establish the aircraft in slow flight on the backside of the power curve, where more power is needed to fly slower, as indicated by intermittent stall warnings or aerodynamic buffet …”  This is a softer and easier standard. 

Takeoff

The required pre-takeoff briefing to be given to the examiner now includes noise abatement procedures.

Also, a marking scale is now provided for lateral control during the takeoff roll: the highest mark (4) can only be achieved if you keep the aircraft fuselage over the centreline, and if you drift more than halfway to the edge, that’s a mark of (1) – fail. The same scale, says the note, applies to landings too.

Forced landing

The new aim for Exercise 22 is to “plan, manage and safely carry out a successful approach in the event of an engine failure to a selected touchdown zone in the first 1/3 of a suitable landing area.” Previously it was to “determine that the candidate can, in the event of an engine failure, plan, manage and safely carry out a successful landing on a suitable landing area.”

A new note states “An approach that would have resulted in touching down more than 1,000 feet beyond the end of the selected touchdown zone in the first 1/3 of the landing area will be considered a major error and assessed with a mark of “2” or less“.

Also new as a criterion is to “fly  an organized approach while adjusting the flight profile to arrive at key points at the desired height and position;” – previously key points were not required.

Instrument recovery from unusual attitudes

In recovering from an unusual attitude under the hood, the candidate now has to “promptly and smoothly recover to straight and level flight within the aeroplane’s limitations.” The phrase “within the aeroplane’s limitations” is new, and the previous requirement “with minimum loss of altitude” has been dropped. In the specific performance criteria, “take immediate and corrective recovery action” has been replaced with “apply smooth coordinated control application in the correct sequence”.

Emergency procedures / Malfunctions

“Icing” has been replaced with “Carb icing”, and “in-flight icing” doesn’t appear in the list of simulated emergencies.

Proficiency vs. ability