To follow up from the instructor meeting on Monday, I want to emphasize a few points. First, is to thank you for the work you keep doing! We are producing some good pilots out there and at a consistent and healthy pace. While we received some criticism that doesn’t imply we are doing things badly. If we were, students would not be passing. They are!

To follow up on the “teardrop” issue. I agree with much of what Dave said on this. I have mentioned it often in conversation, too. I don’t honestly know where the term came from but it doesn’t really matter, to me. It’s how it is executed that matters. Truthfully if you want to call it a teardrop or a turtle doesn’t matter - it’s irrelevant. What is relevant is standard phraseology and safe piloting. The term “teardrop entry” doesn’t appear in the literature. What is more of issue, though, is how folks are reversing course and entering on the 45 to downwind. Dave is correct. I see it too. Too often people feel locked into crossing exactly 500 feet above TPA then execute the turn way too close to the pattern and often turn into traffic. The recommendation is to go at least two miles from the runway. Use the tool in ForeFlight that draws the pattern as a guide as it provides a great template to follow. Yes, ForeFlight calls that a teardrop but shame on them. The short story on this is that it is wise to practice all pattern entries and show their strengths and weaknesses. I’m not a big fan of “never” or “always” in any context with flying except in terms of gravity or running out of money. Each scenario has several respectable executions that work at that moment. It’s being dynamic that counts.

On the cross country topic, efficiency is important in our instruction. Let’s face it, Lovelock is a great destination for us! Bob made a great point that it also is one of the few accessible routes that has great opportunities for VOR navigation - a skill I’d argue most of our PPL candidates are lacking at some level. From a risk perspective, it’s a lot less risky than destinations over the Sierra. I am not a fan of sending the average PPL student into eastern California. That’s an average, though. While Lovelock (and its long xc iterations) may seem redundant for the instructor, I still think it is one of our best choices for a solo cross country.  That said, there is no reason you and your student cannot fly to another airport for the cross country training - especially if there is an intrinsic motivator on behalf of the student (family lives there, favorite vacation spot, etc.). There is no requirement that the airport they fly to on the solo cross country is the one you trained them to for your dual. There is also no reason a student must go to Lovelock. If there’s a good reason to train them to another airport, that’s part of what aviation is all about. Embrace it! So, the short on this, we want all cross country flights to be with purpose, safe, meeting the regs and requirements for instruction. I encourage you to stir it up a bit but not too much. If you have an idea for a cross country for a student that you think would work great, run it by me. In the meantime, Lovelock can still be our fall-back standard destination. I want to encourage folks to branch out but only when they are ready.

Regarding follow up to authentic assessments, we’re about 50/50. I’d like to see that ratio increase. We’re doing good with getting things posted but we need to do better with making the assessments mean something usable. Remember we need have specific, quantifiable “look-fors” with the tasks we are marking students on. Saying, “That’s a pretty good landing” versus “Good landing. You were on the ground within 200 feet of the aiming point, airspeed on final was right at 60, maintained centerline, and smooth control during braking.” Those are two different bits of feedback. Most of that can be in the oral debrief of the lesson but the written narrative should reflect that in an abbreviated way, also. Again, some of you do great with that but some of you need to beef it up a bit.

Emergencies continue to be just so-so as a whole. Pilots need to get bold items on the emergency checklists committed to memory! Yes, checklists should be used IF THERE IS TIME but the emphasis should be on saving lives first, not pulling the checklist first. It’s a judgement call but I can guarantee that a lot of the simulated emergencies I introduce on mock checkrides would end in people getting hurt or killed if they were real. They’re not that crazy, either. Emergencies are probably the finest example of thinking outside the box. Personally, I have never had an actual emergency introduce itself like the worst case scenarios we typically teach in flight training. They are usually somewhere in-between. Also, for emergency landing spots, I often see people ignore great landing areas in favor of dangerous spots, for example. We’ll get to where we run out of altitude, recover, then I’ll ask what was wrong with the dry lakebed they ignored four miles back. You get the point.
​
Last thing, I know several of you have been eyeballing other professional flying gigs as your hours build. Would you please keep me in the loop as you are looking? I need to keep a good eye on the future and predict needs for instructor staffing and knowing when you are looking will be helpful in that process! Also, it’s easy to develop ‘short timers disease’ as your horizons change. I know this is a tough gig and commend everyone for the hard work you put in creating safe and competent pilots that may very well fly you or your family to far off lands one day. If you do get a case of STD… wait… (just seeing if you read this far), please keep in mind the big picture of what you are doing as an instructor. It’s a huge responsibility and, in my biased opinion, one of the most important jobs in aviation - bar none. Thanks for all you do! Feel free to reach out with any questions.

We are going to do some things differently around our stage checks here at GBA. I value everyone’s professionalism and want to capitalize on that during our students’ progress. However, communication MUST be present on all of the checks - especially pre-solo. As your students get ready for progress checks your records for the students receiving the check must be complete. If they are not, your student is not ready for the progress check. Your diligent, professional, accurate, and thorough feedback is essential in this process. Skills represented as ‘complete’ need to be consistently to standard. If all lessons are done to standards presented in the syllabus, then the student is ready.

So, as of now, for the PPL curriculum, all instructors at Great Basin Aviation are authorized to do the Stage 1, Phase 2, Scenario 4 Progress Check (this is the first one in the syllabus); the Stage 1, Phase 5, Scenario 1 (pre-solo check); and the Stage 2, Phase 3, Scenario 7 (cross country progress check). I want to see the pre-solo cross country check start to happen. The final progress check in the syllabus, the mock checkride, needs to be coordinated through me. On any progress check, you must let me know that you are scheduling the progress check and with whom. This must happen at least a few days in advance so I can have a look at the student’s records. I will then give you the green light for the check once I have had the chance to look at the records. If I have not given authorization, the check cannot happen.

Instructors are not required to conduct phase checks. It places an extra burden of responsibility on you. The records for the check must be entered quickly and with thorough feedback that has both qualitative and quantitative feedback for the pilot and instructor. Feedback needs to be specific and reference standards and best practices. If you do not want this responsibility, that is fine, but I encourage everyone to give it a shot! Again, communication is key with the primary instructor and with me.

Prior to any phase check, please reference THIS DOCUMENT which has all the phase checks listed from the syllabus with the expected skillset. Yes, you should cover this material! That said, it’s a lot of stuff. I’m okay with you using your professional judgement on what to emphasize - just like on a checkride. Some skills may be omitted but not to excess. When we coordinate ahead of the checks I’ll help guide you in on areas of emphasis. I am still willing and able to conduct any of the phase checks and invite anyone who wants to ride along the opportunity to see how I work the assessment piece. Please see me with any questions. Remember, you are not required to do this! Just let me know if you’re rather not and that is fine. If you do choose to do the checks, though, we must have them be done well. I’ll give special emphasis to the follow up with the check instructor just to help as I can.

So, for a brief summary. Any instructor can do any phase check except the mock checkride. I can help you coordinate the check or you can go directly to another instructor. Remember that I must know about the check a few days ahead and must authorize it first. Do not give the check without authorization. Mock checkrides will be coordinated through me. Thank you all! 

Here’s the quick mixture setting for takeoff that works almost all the time at our altitudes: lean about 1/4” to 3/8” lean of full rich. Period. No leaning to RPM drop, restoring, a few turns left, right, then cycling tanks, turning pitot heat on, checking software versions in the GPS, etc. I’m being silly but it’s really quite simple and we overthink it way too much. To understand why, and to help your student understand why, please read below. Also, please remember, you still need to lean for cruise - which is what most folks want to do for takeoff. 

I agree with recent posts about folks having a lot of different methods for leaning for takeoff. It is being, and has been, overthought way too much. As for a single method or setting with respect to how it should be done, that’s hard to pin down because what we are leaning for during takeoff is MAXIMUM POWER. Max power settings change with density altitude so there isn’t a single setting to use for that. There is, however, a good average we can use that works well and keeps equipment happy. Keep reading but before we get to that remember that when you are in cruise, we lean for MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY. It’s a different process. Leaning for max efficiency is what people are doing most often during runup BUT leaning for max efficiency, especially during hot conditions, will lead cylinder head temps soaring and is really hard on the engine during climb at full throttle.

If we take what the POH for the 172 says regarding leaning for max power it reads, “Prior to takeoff from fields above 3000 feet elevation, the mixture should be leaned to give maximum RPM in a full throttle, static runup.” If you were to use this technique, you apply full mixture then full throttle then lean the mixture until the maximum RPM is achieved. Done. That’s max power. If RPM didn’t increase, you were at max power at full rich! You’ll notice that it is about 1/4”-3/8” lean in most conditions for most of our aircraft at our altitudes. Look at the expiration date on your AOA badge. Those numbers are between 1/4” and 3/8” tall for reference. This technique does not require leaning until RPM drop then richening a turn or two or three or whatever. Doing it that way sends engine temps soaring.

All that said, I do not want people doing full throttle runups all the time on every flight. It will chew the props to bits a lot quicker. Demonstrating this technique is fine but knowing that the sweet spot is about 1/4”-3/8” lean (from full rich mixture and at our altitudes) is also fine. Students should know where that setting came from. You can demo this really well on the simulator and run the thing at full throttle on the ground all you want.

Climb out at that richer setting to most altitudes where we work! If you’re going much above 8000, or so, you might want to lean the mixture just a little bit, like a quarter to half turn or so. If you hear the RPM increase, great, if not, richen it back to where it was. Remember, a lot of our targets for settings are a little dynamic due to the dynamic nature of the atmosphere. On average we’ll see about 10-12 GPH during climb if mixture is set properly.
​
So, again, short story: 1/4” to 3/8” lean of rich is typically an okay setting for max power for take off and climb at our altitudes. Longer story: during mag check leaning to RPM drop, richening, then arbitrary turns rich does not generate max power and instead encourages an overheated engine. Don’t do a full throttle runup on evert flight but understand where the rule of thumb comes from. See me for any question or to practice this. Thank you!

You all have been doing really quite well in regards to flying respectfully in and around our flying area! I wanted to make sure everyone, especially our newer instructors, keeps that up. We don't want to saturate any single area with pattern or low altitude ops as that is what tends to get the non-aviators out there worked up. Remember that here at KRNO, GBA has some voluntary noise abatement procedures we'd like you to adhere to. Here is a reminder of what they are.

• always make safety and ATC compliance a priority
• avoid pattern work at KRNO before 8:00 AM or after 6:00 PM when possible
• at all times, minimize unnecessary pattern work at KRNO in general (if you need to do a few laps, fine, but keep it to a minimum - see my old email below)
• when 17 in use, extend departure leg past Rattlesnake Mountain if possible
• request right traffic for 17 from time to time
• maximize climb rate if safe while still over the airport and before turning away from the runway 
• if you need to mass practice landings, try to do that at one of our satellite airports

I also want to reshare an email I sent a while back with some thoughts on how you do pattern work. The whole idea was to keep lessons dynamic without getting too saturated in any one area. Here's the email:
----------------------------
This email is coming after additional conversations with the noise analyst for the Airport Authority. I wanted to toss it out for you to consider in the hopes that one thing we can do to help our noise footprint is to consider how we teach landings. I will send out some abbreviated modifications to our procedures on WhatsApp but I also want you to consider how you teach landings. I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that landings are one of the most difficult tasks to master for new pilots.  

Take a moment and dissect landings in your head. The pilot in training has to balance speed horizontally, speed vertically, engine power, spacing from other traffic, communicating on the radio, adjusting for wind, accuracy of touchdown point, anticipate possible unknowns, etc. Each sub-part is a complex task in itself but all together, whoa! How do we typically teach landings? Oftentimes, we go practice some of the sub-parts a few times then head to the pattern and start banging them out 1000 feet AGL and below in a high-workload, high-stress environment. 

Often times we're going from Three Blind Mice to Flight of the Bumblebee without a lot of in-between. Educationally, we call that massed practice. I get it. We want students to make progress and there is a place for it. I'm suggesting we lean more on what is known as spaced practice - at least at first. Essentially in that, we divide up those sub-parts more and more expecting mastery with the sub-parts before stringing them altogether. We can practice those anywhere - even relatively low to the ground to gain comfort with ops at low altitudes. 

If we push landings too hard, too often there will be a point of no return where learning stops and gains are minimal. When that happens, we end up going around and around in the pattern. Where that point of no return is varies by student but I have seen it in everyone. What I'd like to consider instead is something like this: 

Take off Reno
For your enroute portion, consider working on navigation skills, VOR, hood time, etc. 
Fly to SPZ and make a few landings (could be any airport)
Depart SPZ and head to the dry lake bed for a couple stalls, steeps, etc. 
While enroute and at a low workload talk about the landings
Head to CXP for a few more landings (could be any airport)
Head back to RNO
If time at RNO, maybe a few more landings

What we've just done there is to break the lesson into parts keeping numerous skills alive but not to the point of overload. If prep is done efficiently, you can pack that much into a two-hour block. Now consider what we've just done to our impact to any single area. It might be a good way to enhance instruction at the same time as continuing our mission of being good stewards of aviation in the communities where we fly. 

I visited with a tower supervisor and controller from KRNO today. They were very complimentary of the pilots and instructors at GBA - as always! Thank you for continuing to teach professionalism and high standards in all you do. They are working on a project to mitigate risk with traffic coming and going from KRTS. As it is now, traffic is often coming or going from Stead but could either be with KRNO Tower outbound from KRNO or on with NORCAL if coming in from KRTS. This is due to the close proximity of the two airports and the way traffic gets handed off. 

The issue they are seeing is that traffic often gets a frequency switch from ATC (Approach to Tower, for example) but may immediately get a traffic alert due to the nature of this scene. They are trying to reduce the first response from ATC being a traffic alert. GBA is one of the biggest local 'flows' to and from the airport so we brainstormed a procedure I'd like folks to teach and to use. Best part is that it is simple. 

When going to Stead, expect the normal right, downwind departure. Unless otherwise told, keep downtown on your left then keep Highway 395 on your left once you cross it. Do your thing at Stead. On the way back, leave the pattern at Stead appropriately then head west over Cold Springs. Pass over 395 and stay on the west side of it back inbound. ATC often asks us to fly to downtown then enter a right downwind for 17. Expect that and do it unless instructed otherwise! Keep 395 on your left inbound, too. Basically what we're doing is making an unofficial approach and departure corridor. See my picture here. 

This should be super simple, easy to do, and not create any undue nonsense. Reach out if you have any questions. As usual, ATC instructions and safety always take priority. This is all just a request and an attempt to mitigate potential situations Reno ATC sees all the time. Thank you! 

I debated on whether or not to add this topic to the recent virtual instructor meeting and decided that a post here was appropriate since I missed my window. I want you to all consider the stage checks that we do. Our goal in a stage check is for quality control, if you will, in many levels. It gets the student used to flying with another instructor from time to time, helps them develop their skills with a measured benchmark on their way to the certificate they are working on, gets them a second professional opinion as to their completion of the syllabus, and allows us to assess how instruction is going. All told, stage checks are a flight school best practice regardless of the level of instruction the pilot is receiving.

One thing I need you all to consider, though, is how you are using the stage check. If it basically aligns with the statements above then you get it. That’s what should be happening. However, it is not uncommon to also get feedback from some of you that goes along the lines of, “I just needed them to fly with you so they could learn that they weren’t ready for their checkride from someone else.” Sometimes I’ll hear solo in place of checkride. If you have ever used a stage check, especially a mock oral or checkride in that way, then you really need to consider this. The goal should be that the check instructor’s feedback should be on the same page as your own - not radically different.

We have discussed often the importance of relevant, accurate, and timely feedback. To give such, we have to make sure that we know what we are assessing in the first place and must have some standard we are measuring. For a checkride it is the ACS. Along the way, it is the benchmarks outlined in the syllabus lessons. They are a progressive path that leads the student to ACS level of performance (and hopefully higher!). This breaks down, though, if the student is not accessing those standards. Yes, you can let them know verbally at each lesson but ultimately the student needs to become independent with their assessment so they know how they are doing without you telling them. That requires better communication. It centers on the student analyzing their progress for themselves and not the instructor giving all the feedback. It’s about breeding independence in the cockpit.

Especially on the mock checkride, it is inappropriate and, honestly, unprofessional to put the check instructor in the role of “the bad guy”. The primary instructor needs to be able to have difficult conversations with students and be honest with them. Missing feedback is just as bad as inaccurate feedback. If a student believes they are doing great with a sequence of maneuvers because they have not been told otherwise, then they move along through instruction on that misconstrued reality. They continue to repeat the poor performance solidifying substandard execution of their piloting tasks. Instead, the instructor needs to give the feedback promptly that things aren’t going well. It should be verbally during the debrief and then in writing in the lesson writeup. After much struggle, it is appropriate to say, “Pilot, this task just isn’t sinking in. We’re going to have to try another approach.” Eventually, it is also okay to have that hard conversation and say, “You know, your progress is coming along much more slowly than average. The reasons I have observed are…”

The last thing we want to do is get a student to the end of the syllabus but have them flying like they are near the beginning. When that happens, it is on the instructor 100%. That shows a lack of understanding in assessing the student’s progress or that the student was given inaccurate, poor, or little feedback in the first place. By the fact that you possess your flight instructor certificate, it indicates that you have passed an assessment of how to do this and are deemed competent at it! I want to rely on your professional background here. You need it, the student needs it, and the school needs it. Please consider what I have said and ask yourself if you have ever sent in ill-prepared student up for a stage check as a means to let someone else have the hard conversation. If you have, reconsider this practice. I will always make myself available to support you in your assessments with students - especially the hard conversations - but the message needs to come from you. The instructor’s credibility often falls off a cliff when they are pushed to a stage check they are not ready for then get a laundry list of tasks that were performed well below standard. Please consider that, too. I promise you, your students will remember you for the rest of their lives. Make sure that legacy you leave is a good one!



Have a look at this AOPA article for an outside view on the stage check.
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/flight-schools/flight-school-business/newsletter/2019/april/15/stage-checks-part-two

A few of you have been mentioning engine stalling in ME and RF - and I'm sure other planes soon to follow. I have checked both and don't find anything really far out of whack. There are a couple things to remember: as temps warm up, density altitude increases (I know you know that). What may not be as obvious is that with warmer temps the idle mixture will also need to be adjusted leaner. That is something the mechanic will do during service to improve low RPM ops. In the interim it's possible you'll be more likely to get a rough idle or even an engine stall if you're not careful. Remember to lean well for all ground ops but especially when the temps go up. 

The POH method for mixture adjustment on the ground is to set the engine to 1200 RPM, and lean it out until the engine starts to stumble, then just slightly richen it up. The only 'too lean' on the ground is if you kill the engine. Don't bother messing with EGT on the ground. It means nothing at this power setting. You'll usually see the RPM increase when you're getting to that sweet spot of mixture adjustment on the ground. Much further lean and you'll kill the engine. 

When you land, make sure the student isn't trying to pull the throttle out of the firewall. I have seen that all too often. If you have an engine that is being picky with warmer temps and especially if they keep 'back pressure' on the throttle, they'll often pull the RPM even slower than the idle set just enough to cause an issue. All throttle movements should be gradual without yanking or smashing one way or the other. If the engine starts to sound rough as you slow down on the runway, nudge the throttle in just a tad (1000 RPM is fine). Obviously, you are balancing slowing down with potentially killing the engine but with proper management the latter shouldn't be an issue. 

Teach this scenario and help the students to be more aware of the dynamic nature of what's going on under the cowl. While your car has all the fancy engine controls to adjust air-fuel ratios, there is no such tech in most piston singles. They are as simple as a lawn mower. You, the pilot, are the tech. Use temp changes as a teachable moment to help the students understand that there is no single best setting for mixture that fits all scenarios. Don't stress on a perfect setting but do stress that the setting is dynamic. If you notice the engine starting to stumble a bit on the ground, give it some throttle. If you notice the mixture is excessively rich, lean it. Let us know of any anomalies and we'll always check to make sure all is well. 

Click on the video below to see an example of yanking the throttle too aggressively. 

To follow up on the sim discussion, remember what the simulator is - a Basic Aviation Training Device. It is not an airplane. The goal of using it is to enhance and augment instruction - not replace it. Additionally, the sim is not just a tool for simulating zero vis flying. It can be used for nearly anything to supplement a student’s instruction - anything. That is our goal. Used well, it will make instruction more efficient and cost effective for our students. 
Yes, a student can count 2.5 hours of instruction on our sim for the PPL but since nearly every student goes beyond the minimum time, that figure becomes less important. Also, the amount of time per lesson should not be a target. The skills are the target. As you know, students do not typically master skills on the first attempt nor is the timeline for mastery consistent from one student to the next. It's as variable as the students we teach. 

​Part of our role as flight instructors is to modify instruction and support our students as needed to help them reach their goals. If they can learn, practice, and repeat skills using the simulator, then take those skills to the airplane - with fewer repeats in the airplane - that just makes their training more efficient and cost effective. It makes sense. The goal is not to simply check off boxes on the syllabus to say tasks have been completed. We must support mastery and excellence and assess what they are doing with fidelity. Using a simulator in flight instruction is an industry-wide accepted tool to help make that happen. We are relying on tried and true evidence-backed best practices as we continue to integrate this resource into our instruction. 

​Be sure to see the Instructor Resources page to find the posted information on our simulator. The manual is posted there as well as a guide on using the RedBird for various types of instruction. Also remember that our attitude toward the use of the simulator translates to our instruction with it. If the instructor is of the mindset that the simulator is of little to no benefit, the student will pick up on that quickly which will end up having a negative impact on them using this valuable tool. Simulators are here to stay and will be incorporated throughout pilot instruction at all levels. Build the strong foundation early on to help the student maximize the tool well beyond the current rating they are working on. 
​

Other Useful Reads
FAA AC 61-136B
"Don't Fly, Simulate" - AOPA Article on efficient training with a simulator
Simulation Implementation - AOPA Webinar on using simulators to help flight school business (about 1 hr long)
Learning to Fly With a Simulator - Flying Magazine article on using a sim to augment training
University of North Dakota research paper on the efficacy of simulator and virtual reality in flight training

This is a repost from our WhatsApp group but it is worth archiving here

It has come to my attention that there was a rather spirited conversation in the office the other day on an old topic: the interpretation of the long commercial cross country flight and whether it can be done VFR or IFR.

It is true that FAR 61.129 does not specify VFR or IFR for the long cross country. It doesn’t even specify day or night. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, the ACS is what the DPE will use to measure the applicants skill, knowledge, and risk management. The ACS specifies often that the skills being evaluated for a commercial pilot are for VFR flight. Our local DPEs have specifically mentioned that doing any of the commercial cross country flights as instrument flights would defeat the purpose of the commercial pilot requirements and that they would not consider a flight logged under IFR valid as prerequisite for any cross country in 61.129. I agree. 

With respect to the cross country training, the logic is that commercial applicants are further developing their skills at the commercial pilot level - not instrument pilot level. Among many other areas, this includes greater accuracy and precision with pilotage (requires VFR) and dead reckoning (VFR when using visual landmarks) as they apply to cross country piloting. The syllabus also incorporates this into the cross country training for commercial pilots. Thus, we will continue to have our applicants complete this requirement daytime VFR. The interpretation of the regulations only begins with the FAR. We are not the legal experts but, believe me, there is a lot of time invested here seeking interpretation and guidance on the regulations. Always feel free to ask for help with interpretation.

After our instructor meeting and conversations with some of you recently, I wanted to follow up on the topic of risk management. I know that some of you would love it if we just had a matrix to follow that gave you a go / no-go for any given flight. Unfortunately, that won’t happen. It isn’t that easy. Risk management is much too important of a topic to make it that simple. Those two words appear together nearly 150 times in the Private Pilot ACS, as an example. The target is moving on every single flight and there is no black and white. Each scenario is different.

My main thing that I have been focusing on, and want all of us to focus on, is the lesson for the student and where they are in their instruction. We must model and teach sound risk management techniques that will benefit the student - always. Their tolerance of risk should be gradually stretched without the mentality of ‘showing them what it’s like to fly in XYZ conditions.’ We also must be careful not to push them too far beyond their abilities knowing that you’ll save them. Ideally, by the time the student is soloed, they should be making the go / no-go decision on their own. If you have talked with me more than five minutes on this topic you know I am a big fan of Flight Risk Assessment Tools.

I’m also a huge fan of having the student make the go / no-go call then respecting that once they have a good grasp on the process. Yes, most of the time, you can probably handle the given flight scenario with a higher safety margin than the student but, again, if the student doesn’t get to flex that intellectual muscle and make the decision, they may not get to practice the sound decision making called for so often in the ACS. If the student is soloed and has solo limits, then you blast through those limits for a dual flight, what does that teach? If the student isn’t even soloed yet and the modeling is that you do really funky conditions with the CFI but the student gets stuck with more benign weather, what does that model?

There are numerous opportunities to bring no-fly days into the classroom or simulator. Keep the target moving and don’t fixate on hard numbers. Instead, fixate on the goals of your lesson with the student and think about everything you model throughout your instruction. Point the students to the FAA’s Risk Management Handbook. I’d also recommend reviewing Chapter 10 in the Aviation Instructor’s Handbook. That’s got some good info in there!