NCAA Flight Instructor common mistakes
NCAA Flight Instructor · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When explaining how to correct a student's poor landing flare, the candidate describes the correction in vague terms such as 'just tell them to flare later' without specifying the observable behaviour, the timing, or the control input.
Candidates often rely on their own flying experience and assume the student will understand general advice; they have not practised translating a correction into a concrete, measurable instruction.
What to do instead
Use a structured correction model: identify the specific error (e.g., flare initiated at 15 ft instead of 5 ft), state the desired behaviour (hold altitude until the runway edges appear to converge), and give a measurable cue (e.g., 'reduce power smoothly at 10 ft and begin flare when the horizon intersects the far end of the runway'). Practise writing corrections in this format for common errors.
The candidate confuses the roles of the flight instructor and the examiner when describing the conduct of a private pilot licence skill test, stating that the instructor can certify the applicant as ready without a recommendation or that the instructor conducts the test.
Inadequate study of Nig. CARs Parts 1 and 2; candidates often rely on general knowledge from other jurisdictions where the terminology differs, and they fail to check the specific Nigerian requirements.
What to do instead
Study Nig. CARs Part 2 (Personnel Licensing) and the associated guidance. Learn that the instructor recommends the applicant, that the skill test is conducted by an authorised examiner, and that the instructor must hold the appropriate instructor rating and have completed the required training and testing. Create a flowchart of the licensing process from student to instructor.
When teaching a stall recovery, the candidate demonstrates the recovery sequence but omits the critical step of reducing the angle of attack before adding power, and does not explain why the order matters.
Candidates often memorise the sequence as a list without understanding the aerodynamics; they may also be influenced by aircraft-specific procedures that emphasise power first in some types.
What to do instead
Teach the generic recovery: reduce angle of attack (forward elevator), then apply power, then roll wings level, then climb. Explain that reducing AoA is the only immediate way to decrease the critical angle and restore lift. Use a whiteboard to draw the lift curve and show how AoA reduction moves the aircraft away from the stall. Emphasise that power alone cannot unstall a wing if AoA remains excessive.
The candidate provides a lesson plan that lists activities but lacks clear, measurable objectives and a logical sequence that builds from known to unknown, and does not include a method for assessing student understanding.
Candidates often copy a template without adapting it to the specific lesson; they may not have practised writing objectives in behavioural terms or designing assessment questions.
What to do instead
Use the ABCD method for objectives (Audience, Behaviour, Condition, Degree). For each lesson, write at least one objective per phase (e.g., 'Given a diagram of the traffic pattern, the student will identify the five legs with 80% accuracy'). Include a review of previous learning, a development section with demonstration-performance, and a summary with questions to check understanding. Practise by writing a 30-minute lesson plan on a simple topic and having it reviewed.
When analysing a student's error, the candidate attributes it to 'carelessness' or 'lack of aptitude' instead of identifying a specific cause such as inadequate demonstration, poor habit formation, or a misunderstanding of the manoeuvre.
Candidates may not have been exposed to a systematic error-analysis framework; they may also be uncomfortable giving specific feedback and default to general labels.
What to do instead
Use a structured analysis: describe the error in observable terms, identify the phase of learning (cognitive, associative, autonomous), and determine whether the cause is instructional (unclear demonstration), psychological (anxiety, motivation), or physiological (fatigue). Then select a corrective strategy: re-demonstrate, provide guided practice, or adjust the environment. Practise with case studies of common errors such as forgetting to carb heat or misjudging the round-out.
The candidate fails to include the required elements of a pre-flight briefing for a instructional flight, omitting the review of the previous lesson, the objectives of the current lesson, and the risk assessment (e.g., weather, NOTAMs, aircraft status).
Candidates may focus on the flying portion and treat the briefing as a formality; they may not have internalised the Nig. CARs requirement for a pre-flight briefing or the school's standard operating procedures.
What to do instead
Use a checklist for every briefing: (1) review previous lesson and homework, (2) state the objective and completion standards, (3) discuss the manoeuvres and potential errors, (4) cover safety and risk management (weather, NOTAMs, aircraft defects, human factors), (5) confirm student understanding by asking questions. Practise delivering a 10-minute briefing with a peer acting as the student.
The candidate misstates the recency or currency requirements for a flight instructor in Nigeria, such as the number of hours or the frequency of proficiency checks, or confuses the requirements for different instructor grades.
Nig. CARs Part 2 contains detailed and sometimes cross-referenced provisions; candidates may study from outdated summaries or assume that requirements from other authorities (e.g., FAA, EASA) apply.
What to do instead
Obtain the current Nig. CARs Part 2 and the associated advisory circulars. Create a table comparing the requirements for each instructor grade (e.g., Assistant Flying Instructor, Flying Instructor, Instructor Examiner) covering: validity period, minimum hours, medical, and proficiency check. Verify with the NCAA or a current examiner. Test yourself by writing the requirements from memory and checking against the regulation.
When teaching emergency procedures, the candidate presents the memory items but does not explain the underlying system or the decision-making process, and does not include a scenario-based practice.
Candidates may focus on rote memorisation because that is how they were taught; they may lack confidence in explaining systems or in facilitating scenario-based training.
What to do instead
For each emergency, teach the system first (e.g., how the fuel system works, what happens when the pump fails), then the memory items, then the decision-making (e.g., land immediately vs. continue to a suitable airfield). Use a scenario: 'You are at 3,000 ft, 10 nm from the airfield, and the engine runs rough; what do you do?' Have the student talk through the checklist and decision. This builds understanding and retention.
The candidate does not integrate human factors into instruction, such as failing to recognise and address a student's anxiety or overconfidence, and does not teach the student to self-assess.
Candidates may view human factors as a separate topic rather than an integral part of every lesson; they may also lack tools to assess and manage student attitudes.
What to do instead
Use a human factors checklist at the start of each lesson: fatigue, stress, motivation, confidence. Teach the student to use a self-assessment tool (e.g., IMSAFE) before flight. During the lesson, observe behaviour and adjust instruction: for an anxious student, break the task into smaller steps and provide positive reinforcement; for an overconfident student, introduce a challenging scenario to reveal limitations. Debrief with questions that encourage self-reflection.
The candidate provides a vague or incomplete explanation of how to teach a specific manoeuvre, such as the Chandelle or Lazy Eight, omitting the entry parameters, the visual references, and the common errors.
Candidates may not have flown or taught these manoeuvres recently, or they may rely on memory rather than a structured lesson plan; they may also confuse the manoeuvres from different categories.
What to do instead
For each manoeuvre, prepare a lesson plan that includes: objective, entry parameters (airspeed, power, configuration), step-by-step procedure with visual references (e.g., 'at the 45° point, the horizon should be at a specific position on the cowling'), common errors and corrections, and completion standards. Practise by teaching the manoeuvre to a peer and receiving feedback. Refer to the current FAA Airplane Flying Handbook or equivalent for standard descriptions, but adapt to Nigerian regulations and aircraft.