The Kodiak Blog
Every pilot has had the experience of a flight where the aircraft was not the problem — and a flight where it was.
In the first kind, the instrument scan flows without effort, radio calls come out cleanly, the approach is briefed well ahead of time, and the landing feels like a natural conclusion to a well-managed flight. In the second kind, something about the aircraft is using up working memory that was supposed to be available for everything else. A knob in a slightly different place. An avionics page that needs two extra steps to reach. The physical act of flying is no harder, but the cognitive experience of that flight is different in a way that affects how well everything else is executed.
This distinction — between cognitive resources consumed by the aircraft itself and cognitive resources available for flying the flight — is at the heart of what makes some training environments more effective than others.
The aircraft a pilot trains in is not just a machine. It is a cognitive environment. What that environment demands from working memory shapes what is left over for learning, situational awareness, and sound decision-making.
Cognitive load refers to the total mental effort being used in working memory at any given moment. Working memory has a limited capacity. When the total demands approach or exceed that capacity, performance degrades: decision quality drops, details are missed, responses slow. In a learning context, overloaded working memory cannot encode new information into long-term memory, which means the student is present for the lesson but not actually building the skills it was designed to develop.
Cognitive Load Theory distinguishes three types of load. Intrinsic load is inherent to the task itself — flying an ILS approach to minimums in IMC has high intrinsic load that cannot be reduced by simplifying the aircraft. Extraneous load is imposed by factors not essential to the task — a poorly labeled instrument, an avionics workflow that requires multiple non-intuitive steps. This is the type most directly controlled by aircraft design and fleet consistency; it does not serve learning, it competes with it. Germane load is the productive load associated with building the organized knowledge structures that let a skilled pilot process complex situations efficiently.
When I watch a student working too hard to manage the aircraft, I know the lesson is not landing. They are spending everything they have just keeping up with the cockpit. A big part of the fix is giving students an aircraft that is consistent, reliable, and that they know well enough that the cockpit stops being the problem. — Harbour Dollinger, Kodiak Aviation, Falcon Field
In a rental fleet where a student flies different aircraft on different days — a Cessna 172 with a standard layout one week, a different 172 with an upgraded GPS but different panel configuration the next — a portion of every flight's cognitive budget is spent on reorientation. Where is the fuel selector on this one? Does the GPS use the same button sequence? These are small questions, but they are not free. They use the same working memory capacity that should be available for traffic awareness, weather assessment, and learning the lesson the instructor planned.
A poorly maintained aircraft adds a different category of overhead: background vigilance. A pilot aware of a known issue cannot fully suppress that awareness during flight. For student pilots, who have less experience to draw on when evaluating whether a system behavior is normal, this effect is more pronounced. An aircraft whose maintenance record is current and whose systems behave predictably removes this category of overhead entirely.
The long-term objective of flight training is not that a pilot can perform required tasks. It is that a pilot can perform required tasks automatically, freeing working memory for the unexpected. Automaticity is built through consistent, repeated practice on the same system in the same environment. A student who has completed fifty approaches in the same aircraft has built a precise, deeply encoded schema for how that aircraft behaves on approach — a schema that does not require working memory to access.
Automaticity is not a gift. It is an outcome of consistent, repeated practice in a stable environment. Every unnecessary change in aircraft or avionics resets part of that process and makes the pilot work harder to reach the same place.
There is a common concern that glass cockpit aircraft increase cognitive load for student pilots by presenting more information than analog instruments. But this mistakes the transition cost for the steady-state cost. Well-designed integrated avionics suites — like the Garmin Perspective+ in the Cirrus SR20 G6 — consolidate information that analog instruments scatter across a panel into an organized, spatially consistent primary flight display, supporting the pilot's scan rather than fragmenting it.
Modern training aircraft also offer automation capabilities that, used intelligently, allow a student to reduce the motor and scanning demands of maintaining altitude and heading while their cognitive resources are directed toward higher-order tasks: procedure briefing, traffic awareness, decision-making practice. This is not learning to be a passive systems monitor. It is learning to manage workload strategically.
The cumulative effect of training consistently in a single, well-maintained, modern aircraft compounds over the course of a training program. Schemas develop faster in consistent environments. Performance is better at high-workload phases — takeoff, approach, and landing — precisely where the extraneous load savings from a familiar aircraft matter most. And the ultimate measure of a training environment's quality is not how many hours it takes to reach a milestone, but how much actual skill is developed per hour of flight time. A student operating near cognitive capacity learns less per flight than a student with genuine spare capacity.
A good aircraft gets out of the way. That is the whole job. — Harbour Dollinger, Kodiak Aviation, Falcon Field
Ask about fleet composition and aircraft consistency. The ideal training environment is one where the primary training aircraft is available consistently across the entire program — the same aircraft or the same type with the same avionics configuration, flown from first dual through checkride.
Ask about maintenance quality and squawk resolution. An operation whose maintenance culture prioritizes resolving squawks before the aircraft returns to service produces a training environment where background vigilance is not part of the cognitive budget for every flight.
Use the simulator to reduce avionics unfamiliarity before first flight. An FAA-certified simulator in the same configuration as the training aircraft allows a student to absorb the avionics workflow and work through the initial unfamiliarity phase without spending cockpit time on it. When a student arrives at their first dual flight having already spent several hours in an identically configured simulator, the first dual flight can be about flying, not about learning the cockpit.
Ready to put it into practice? Rent the Cirrus SR20 G6 or book the FAA-certified simulator at Falcon Field.
Book a Session