One training organisation is making big changes to its flight test programme – and the results speak for themselves.

Flight test failures are frustrating to the student, their instructor, and the external examiner.

Like many training schools, the New Zealand Airline Academy (NZAA) in Oamaru faced repeated first-time flight test failures – but is now turning that on its head.

The aviation examiners, Aspeq, say that improvement is going against a nationwide trend of increasing test failures.

“While some schools have always performed well in terms of their passes,” says Aspeq’s Deputy Aviation Manager, Paul Kearney, “flight test pass rates have generally been declining across the country over the past five years.

“But NZAA is going against that trend, after putting in some big changes to the way it approaches flight tests.”

The academy’s head of training, Celroy Mascarenhas, says the new approach to flight testing came after he attended a CAA chief flying instructor seminar in Christchurch in June 2025.

“I talked to Guy Brooking (CAA Flight Examiner) about what we could do to improve our first-time pass rates.

“What he told me turned our flight test failures completely around.”

Guy gave Celroy two pieces of advice. Firstly, get to the root cause of the student’s difficulty, and address that issue first in remedial training. Secondly, choose one instructor to take all mock tests. (The academy’s normal practice was to have several instructors conducting them).

“That solution was sort of sitting there right in front of me all along,” says Celroy. “But I just needed someone to say it out loud and I thought, ‘That makes total sense’.”

“The mock tests also became much more comprehensive – more even than the actual flight tests. Rather than assessing only manoeuvres in the air, our mock test assessor looked at logbooks, making sure they were complete and compliant.

“We also made sure the student’s groundwork was up to speed. A significant amount of time was spent assessing that, including going through all the knowledge deficiency records. The instructor asked every question that’s ever been asked or could possibly be asked. All this made the mock test much longer – and more stringent – than the actual flight test.”

Celroy said the students were unhappy to start with.

“Some of them had been gaming the system a bit. Previously, if they perceived their assigned mock test instructor was going to be really strict, they’d be away that day, then unavailable until they would get someone they perceived as likely to go easier on them.

“They thought having one instructor for all their mock tests was ‘unfair’. But I’d made a decision, and with Guy’s assurance he’d back me on this new approach, I stood my ground.”

Celroy says another advantage to having one instructor dedicated to mock testing is that the students don’t get multiple interpretations of how a manoeuvre should be carried out.

“Even with standardised mock tests, it can be difficult to offer the same test to everyone, when you have different people involved.”

Celroy says the feedback from students now has been generally very positive. The students recognise their mock tests are harder than their flight tests, which Celroy says is intentional.

“With one person conducting the mock tests, students now understand what our expectations are – that they are going to be held to a high standard.”

The academy also changed the emphasis in remedial training from just the things the student was struggling with, to starting with the root cause of the problem and then doing the entire mock test again.

“The instructor might have said to the student, ‘Go and practise some max rate turns and forced landings, but apart from that, everything is good’. Then we would take them up for just a revision of max rate turns and forced landings, and that would be it.

“Whereas now, if you fail even for one thing, you’ve got to do the entire mock test again – just like the flight test would be.

“I had one student who failed their first mock test, did some remedial training, went up twice more, and failed twice more. But each time, the reasons they were failing were getting fewer and fewer – and they passed their fourth mock test. They then went for their flight test and passed first time.”

Celroy says some students would say, “I need to go and do my flight test right now, and I’m confident I will pass”.

“That’s not based on competency,” he says. “That’s based on a false sense of security that because they’ve completed their 200 hours, they think, ‘I’m ready. I will go and pass’.”

“And then they don’t pass. While more of our students pass their second flight test, it all costs them money – a second flight test fee, living costs, and a heap of revision flying. Saving money is a very good incentive for them to pass first time. And if they failed three mock tests, but passed the fourth, in just over a week, they’ve not wasted so much time or money.”

Celroy has told the mock test instructor – ironically named ‘Harsh’ – “Go in with a stone-cold face. They should feel that you’re not their friend. You’re not there to be friendly. You’re there to look like a hawk at every small thing they do.

“And don’t instruct them!”

Let the students decide

Despite the strict approach, Celroy says forcing students to do remedial training when they don’t want to, can be counterproductive.

“You’ve got to get them to buy into this. If they think they need minimal remedial flights, I might say, ‘Okay, that’s fine – but, you know, the actual examiner will look at how much remedial training you’ve done. Are you sure you want to go out for this test because you’ve done only the one remedial flight?’

“It seems that’s enough for them to reflect on their chances of passing the next flight test. Then they’ll often make the decision to do more remedial training.”

Celroy says some students can be surprisingly mature and self-aware.

“I had one student tell me, ‘Can you please book me in for max rates? I looked at the mock brief and I said, ‘Your max rates were well within CPL limits as per your debrief’, and the student said, ‘I don’t know how I fluked that, but I’m not confident, so I’d like you to book me in for max rates’.

“So rather than us directing the student on what they should be doing, we’ve found it’s a good idea to get the student to weigh up what they can and cannot do.”

Celroy has also reviewed his own practice.

“I used to pride myself on sticking to a good schedule. If I booked flight tests with Aspeq, on a certain date, I didn’t like the idea of cancelling those flight tests because the flight examiner would have booked their accommodation and their transport. I wanted to act in good faith so I’d just try to make sure the students were ready.

“But I’ve changed that. Now I don’t book a flight test until the student has passed their mock test. That means the pressure is off the instructor to claim the student is ready, just because the test date has arrived.

“I say to the student, ‘You pass the mock test, and only then will I book a flight test. I’ll try to get you the earliest possible date, and you just need to do a little bit of revision in between to keep your skills current’.”

A change of heart

Celroy says he’s also changed his attitude towards the flight examiners.

“I was pretty much shaped by my mentors, who I’d seen having some, almost aggressive, discussions with examiners, pushing back on their decisions.

“What I now realise is that if you push back, the examiners don’t open up as much and you miss out on some great guidance.

“But if you ask for feedback and advice, they open up and give you their time.

“The advice I got from Guy, and this improved relationship with the examiners – it’s just made a world of difference.”

Tips from the examiners

One of Celroy’s observations about the academy’s new approach to flight tests is that he can say to the student, “You’ve passed the mock test, which everyone is saying is harder than the actual flight test. You can now be confident of your ability to pass the flight test’.”

Aspeq Examiner Dave Brown says this chimes with one of his first pieces of advice to both student and instructor – prepare well.

“Knowledge is confidence,” he says. “It will help to counter the nerves that can destroy a student’s ability to pass. So make sure the student knows really well what they need to do and show.”

Dave says flight test preparation is similar to handling an emergency.

“The stress level is high, but don’t rush. Sit on your hands and think before you act. Use your checklists, and rely on known procedures. Don’t go ‘off-script’ – that’s where errors creep in.”

He advises instructors to encourage students to practise ground work on bad weather days, and he advises instructors to, “Train to the syllabus, not to the Flight Test Standards Guide. The syllabus is designed to teach a student how to safely operate an aircraft so the context of the lesson is important. It’s not about exercises in isolation, which is what can happen if the FTSG is the focus.”

Finally, Dave advises, “Tell your student they would not have been put up for the test if their instructor didn’t think they could pass.”

A piece of advice that now guides Celroy and the vastly improved first-time flight test pass rates at the NZAA.

Now read...

Remedial training to prevent repeated flight test failures

 

---

Footnote

Main photo courtesy of NZAA.