Many instructors have seen it: a student who passes the written, performs well on expected checkride questions, yet struggles when the same concept is presented differently in flight or in class during discussion.
In today’s training environment, student pilots have access to more information than ever before. In a split second they can find videos, summaries, question banks, AI-generated explanations and quick answers, which look like progress. It allows students to move faster, review quickly, and prepare more efficiently for their exams.
But there is a downside that is becoming harder to ignore.
More content does not always lead to better understanding.
Many students can recognize the correct answer to a question after watching a short explanation or by using a test prep tool. They have seen the concept, remember the wording, and feel comfortable with it. But when they are asked to explain it, apply it in a different context, or connect it to another topic, that understanding often falls short … or may not really be there at all.
That gap matters in aviation.
Aeronautical knowledge is not a checklist of isolated facts. It is a system where all the elements are working together, in conjunction. Weather affects performance. Performance affects planning. Regulations affect decision-making. Human factors are influenced by all of them. The value of that knowledge comes from how well those pieces connect.
And that is where many modern study habits start to show their limits.
Short-form content is effective for exposure. It helps students see a concept quickly and can be useful for review. But when learning becomes primarily a series of short, disconnected explanations, it becomes harder to build a reasoning and a coherent mental framework.
Students may end up knowing pieces of information without fully understanding how those pieces work together.
In the cockpit, that distinction becomes very clear.
Recognizing a correct answer is one thing. Explaining why it is correct, adapting it to a new situation, and using it to make a structured, thoughtful decision are something completely different.
This is where more traditional study methods still play an important role.
Reading, in particular, forces a different kind of engagement. It slows the process just enough for the student to follow the logic, process the details, and connect ideas. It requires more effort, but that effort leads to stronger retention and a deeper level of understanding.
That does not mean modern tools should be set aside. Video and visual explanations can be extremely effective, especially for introducing or reinforcing concepts.
But they work best when they are part of a structured learning process, not a replacement for it.
The goal of ground training is not simply to get students through a written test or prepare them for a specific checkride script. In many cases, students train toward what they believe a particular DPE will ask, focusing on expected questions rather than building a deeper understanding of the material.
That approach can work in the short term. But it often creates knowledge that is insufficient and difficult to adapt when the question is asked differently, when the scenario changes, or when the student later has to apply that knowledge as a pilot in a real-world situation.
Therefore, pilot training should not be about memorizing. It should be about understanding.
As training and technology continue to evolve, the challenge is not choosing between traditional study and modern tools. It is learning how to use both in a way that builds depth, not just speed.
It’s important to remember that in aviation, knowledge is only valuable if it is there when it is needed.
This is not new at all, and been the same for the 40+ years that I have been flying. The technology is better, but back years ago it was books and video’s. King video’s to be sure. It’s the same for the LSAT’s, SAT’s and other standardized tests. Maybe a more appropriate headline article would be, how do we teach students once they have passed the written to support and enforce the knowledge.
I think you will enjoy this take on knowing vs knowledge…
https://youtu.be/lVmifIDgUbU?si=4pCrWgndKsS1NJUp
As a DPE, I see this all the time. If I ask a question that “fits” the “review booK”, the applicant nails it. If I ask for the same info, but in a different format (where rote memory doesn’t work, but understanding does), they falter.
You pose an excellent rhetorical question in your article title Celine. I’ve encountered this phenomenon as a student and an instructor in both academic and in aviation curricula. The problem is universal, but as you say, “that gap matters in aviation.”
My experience as a student during initial type qualification and even in recurrent training is, the more sophisticated the systems are, the more genuine understanding and ability to work with these systems is required to survive when the chips are down in the real world. Genuine understanding wins over rote every time. Thank you for raising the issue.
As an OLD guy, and only other old guys will remember this…I only had the FAA manuals and ACME Study Guides which contained an approximation of the questions and all the answers – not just the most correct one. I had poor study habits due to an overall disdain for school work of any type. I passed the written – barely – and picked up the real information in the real world. After over 50 years of flying I am still studying, learning now because I want to. To me learning is one of two forms…what do I need to pass this test and what do I need to stay alive. With the “modern” computer based training and “here is the question and the correct answer” programs now…well I was allowed to have 3 hours to complete my instrument ground instructor written….I finished with a 99 in 32 minutes…I had seen the questions and answers so many times that I was able to pick the correct one in just seconds. Which is the best way? Old or new? I say a combination as it opens your eyes to what you don’t know and you go and dig because you want to. I have also found the biggest and best motivation to learn….teach.
Acme was definitely it for any written! (Wile E. Coyote knew that)!
There was a time back before the world got so rushed, when a flight engineer would sit sideways for about 10 years or so before moving to the copilot seat and the copilot would sit in the right seat for many more years before becoming a captain. Not anymore.
I was in the middle of taking an FAA test when another applicant arrived….. and was gone 20 minutes later. There’s not a chance that was was reading and understanding the material. The saving grace is that you can’t get away with that during the practical. Before recommending an applicant I always test the knowledge portion (us glider guiders still use the PTS) before hand.
I think Part 141 training is partly to blame for the disconnect between what is taught and what is understood. Perhaps leaning into actual flight before opening a book (as in Part 61 training) might better position a student to understand what he’s already experienced in the air. An example:
From Chapter 9 of FAA-H-8083-3C, Airplane Flying Handbook, regarding Rejected Landings, “..it is wise to retract the flaps intermittently in small increments to allow time for the airplane to accelerate
progressively as they are being raised. A sudden and complete retraction of the flaps could cause a loss of lift resulting in the airplane settling into the ground.”
The text is easy enough to understand, but it’s nothing like the seat-sinking drop a student gets when he dumps the flaps too soon in the go around.
I had a new CFII who insisted she would teach me what I needed to know to pass the checkride. She completely ignored the [King Schools] syllabus the aero club told me to buy. When she threw an ADF approach at me on the fourth lesson without ever having covered approach plates and how to use them, I got disgusted and quit. I didn’t stop flying but I never did get my instrument ticket.
Teaching a person how to fly an airplane is different than teaching a person how to be a pilot. Critical thinking skills, an understanding of the intricacies of resource amanagment and an appreciation for aviation Human Factors are the foundations of being a pilot who will survive and thrive in this high risk environment.
Extremely rarely will an applicant for any rating be a top gun at it before the ink is dry on the ticket and no DPE worth their salt should expect that. It doesn’t matter how the written was passed and at the very least it means they have been exposed to the material. Successfully passing the flight training and practical test demonstrates that they know enough to now go out and get the experience and knowledge to become that top gun.
People these days take way too much for granted. Pilot training is just one more example.
Isn’t this problem (memorization vs. understanding) why checkrides switched to scenario-based oral sections? For both my pilot certificate and my IFR, with different DPEs, the scenarios covered the regulations, aircraft performance restrictions, flight planning, and ADM all at once.
nice thought experiment but nothing has changed from 50 years ago. We had our shortcuts and hacks back then too.
i do remember though I was pretty full of myself as I neared my PPL checkride and an old-timer passed me in the pilot lounge and asked whether conditions were suitable for flying that morning. I proudly regurgitated the visibility regs for the relevant airspace and he responded, “but look out the window- can you go flying?” At that point I realized I couldn’t answer on that marginal day because there wasn’t an ASOS and I had not learned the distances to local visual landmarks. Learned a ton about learning to fly from that small interaction and I’d argue that what is missing today is old-timers sitting in the right seat or wandering around the flight center.