C152 Landing

[Cessna 172S Skyhawk]

Hey all, hope I get a simple and straightforward answer here.

I am about to go solo, and up until now in my circuits, my instructor has controls the nose wheel when we land, so I am not getting the right feel of what happens. I am quite happy that I can manage everything else in the circuit, but what I want to know is -

When you are flaring and about 3' from the runway, just about to land, when the nose wheel touches down, does it castor and if so do you have to control it with the pedals.

I know this sounds like an easy question, but I cant find the answer anywhere and wont be flying for another 10 days, and want to piece everything together for before I go solo.

Thanks in advance for your help

[RTN11]

A castering nosewheel means you have no control over it - it's just like the wheel on a shopping trolley, no connection to the position of the pedals at all.

Once you are down, if landing, you should use of combination of aerodynamic control using the rudder and differetial braking to keep the aircraft straight. If doing a touch and go just leave the brakes alone and use the rudder to keep the thing straight. This will be easier once you have full power applied giving a better airflow over the rudder.

If you go on to fly something with nosewheel steering, the pedals do steer the nose so you have a lot more control during the ground roll.

[funfly]

...and your ready for your first solo?

[BackPacker]

Tell your instructor to get his feet completely off the pedals. If you're about to go solo, he should not be interfering with the controls at all. Not even following through. If he still does that, then either you're not ready for solo by far, or he's not instructing properly.

The beauty of the "land-o-matic" nosewheel steering is that the aircraft will essentially track straight ahead on the landing roll, assuming you had the fuselage and the flight path aligned with the runway centerline in the first place. There is plenty time for the instructor to move his feet off the floor and on the pedals if you do something stupid.

Now if you were flying a tailwheel aircraft, I can imagine that the instructor would want to be able to take control quickly and thus have his feet on, or very near the pedals. But in a nosewheel aircraft with a student who is about to go first solo, no way.:=

[172driver]

What instruction is that ? Surely, if indeed you are about to go solo, you must have flown a full circuit with your instructor only watching ? Baffled....

[Genghis the Engineer]

Get a new instructor, at a different school.

You should be fully controlling the aeroplane well before solo.

Any instructor and school of any quality will have made you read the Pilots Operating Handbook, which describes the controls in detail.

Any instructor of any quality will be briefing you properly on all of this before flight, and debriefing you afterwards so that you understand it all.

Any well run school will be insisting on all of this and monitoring the instructor's standards.


You are not being properly taught and supervised, and the school is not supervising your instructor. Stop wasting your money, even if you pass your PPL at this institution, you will be dangerous.

(And the C152, along I think with all of the other nosewheel Cessnas, has a steerable nosewheel, not many common aeroplanes have a castoring nosewheel - the Grumman AA1/AA5 family are the main exception.)

G

[RTN11]

A student's and an instructor's perception of when someone is "about to go solo" are very different.

The OP hasn't been particularly clear on his flying experience, and may not in fact be definately going solo on the next flight, so don't be so quick to burn the instructor.


It is a standard instructional technique to keep your feet on the pedals early on, only letting the student go without the saftely net when they are ready to do so, it's not for the student to judge it's the instructor.

Having said that, I would hope that if one of my students had a fundamental lack of understanding of how to control the aircraft during the ground roll, I would be able to pick this up and give advice rather than that student having to turn to an anonymous forum, so perhaps a chat with your instructor is in order to make sure you are on the same page. If not, a change of instructor may not be a bad thing. Ultimately you are paying £1xx for his time, so ask as many questions as you can.

Genghis - Do ALL cessna's have nosewheel steering? I've only got a handful of cessna hours from years back, but I'm sure the nosewheel was loose. I know you can do a full and free check of the rudder pedals on the ground without the nosewheel moving on both 152 and 172.

[Pilot DAR]

Leaving aside for the moment, the original poster's readiness for first solo, let's review the nosewheel system and geometry.

A castering nosewheel means you have no control over it

Well, not exactly. A castoring nosewheel with no steering cannot be directly controlled. A steerable nosewheel which castors, can be steered by the pilot, but will tend to castor if not steered. This would be the typical Cessna nosewheel system.

Look at a Cessna nosewheel with the plane parked. It slants forward, this is important. knowing that the steering is the freedom to rotate on the axis of the oleo suspension, and the fork arms do not cant aft (like a shopping cart wheel) or forward (like a bicycle), they are straight. Thus, the point on the tire, which corresponds to the center of steering rotation, is ahead of the point there the tire is contacting the ground. Thus the contact point, being behind the steering axis, tends to drag the wheel to follow the direction of motion (castor). The steering arms, which connect the pedals to the nosewheel have springs, which will allow the wheel to point differently than the pedals direct, though the compression of the spring tends it back to steer as desired by the pilot. Nosewheel Pipers I can think of do not have such a spring.

There are true full castoring only nosewheel planes which have no steering whatever, Grumman AA-1 through AA-5 series for example. Some brakes required.

When you and your instructor get further along in your training, and with suitable briefing before hand, try the following in the 152: With 10 flap, and into a gentle headwind, (on a grass runway, if you have a choice), and taking great care to not bang the tail tiwdown ring on the ground; hold the controls full back as you apply power for takeoff, and continue to hold it, until the nosewheel comes off the ground. Once off, let off a bit of the full back, to just hold the plane in that attitude. This will have happened by about 20MPH. Maintain steering with rudder only, it works perfectly fine, and you'll see that the nosewheel steering really does very little during a good takeoff. Oh, and be the way, you're about to do an excellent soft field takeoff too! Just don't bang the tail please!

[GeeWhizz]

I have to agree with all previous poster re. get another instructor. Although I suspect it's more that you 'think' they are on the pedals instead of actually doing it.

I'l go with it. A C152 or C172 for that matter, will travel in the direction that it is put onto the ground on the main wheels, unless rudder/brake is applied.

There is no more to say on this. Line it up and put it down.

[Pilot DAR]

Line it up and put it down

...and bring it to a gentle stop while steering it on or near the centerline of the runway....

[Ultranomad]

The one (and only?) Cessna without nose wheel steering is the Skycatcher LSA.
Some French C150s had it, too - I learned in one.

[Fark'n'ell]

The one (and only?) Cessna without nose wheel steering is the Skycatcher LSA

No kidding.
Ever heard of a C140, C170, C180, C185, C195?

[Luddite aviator]

Bin the instructor and get someone who knows what they are doing, to me it sounds like your instructor is lacking in two things, personal confidence in his own ability to teach and technical knowlage. I would also guess he spends all his time dreaming of the day he gets to fly an airbus.

With flying instruction at €180/ hour you can't afford to be subsidizing this sort of incompetence.

[Piltdown Man]

I'm in the "get another instructor" camp. A proper instructor will say "you have control" and mean it. That means no interference, no pushing, poking, adjusting, helping or what ever. If they want something done, they either ask you to do it or say "I have control" and after you have given them control, complete the task themselves. A good instructor will also have the confidence NOT to hover over the controls when you are flying.

As for your question regarding steering when landing, see if you can get this shown to you by an engineer - Press the tail down until you see the nosegear fully extend. Now move the nosewheel. It is disconnected from the steering and it can castor. It will be (well it should be) in this position when you first land which means that directional control is (and can only be) maintained by...

PM

(Remember what a crosswind will do to your aircraft... this should be covered in a briefing)
(...and don't forget what you should doing with the ailerons and control column after landing)

[S-Works]

Get a new instructor, at a different school.

Why is it always the Instructor at fault? Perhaps its the student with an inflated idea of being about to go solo based on internet forums telling him that as he has enoug hours he may be ready?

It could well be that he is nowhere near going solo (even if he is being told he is about ready to boost confidence) and that the Instructor is still in teaching and follow through mode?

Lets face it, if the student does not even know how the nose wheel works on a 152 are they anywhere near ready for solo.....

[mad_jock]

Instructor is still in teaching and follow through mode?

Never done this.

There is only ever one person flying the aircraft. The is very limited value in taking individual controls because as we all know the effects are interlinked. You just end up building in problems and bug bears for later.

The other obvious thing is that the student hasn't understood the landing brief if it has been given at all.

Whats the back ground and experence level of your instructor?

[S-Works]

MJ, are you sersiously telleing me you have never followed through with a student!!?

I am not refering to two people flying the aircraft I am referring to the intervention point where you have to give input or risk a problem. I agree hovering over the controls or holding onto them does little to develop the student.

We are only hearing one side of the story hear but have immediatly started to blame the Instructor.............

[mad_jock]

Nope. well I might have done in the early days learning my trade until I realised it was a particularly stupid and bad way of teaching.

Its hands on my knees, feet off the peddles, then "I have control" if I want it. Same in multicrew ops as well. There are instructors out there that cover everything. I don't know if its a confidence thing or a lack in thier own abilitys. But before you take control you should really be calling "go-around I say again go-around" then when they make a pigs ear of that you take it.

Circuit training I won't say anything either during the approach if its leading up to solo. In that situation though I am looking at if they can make the command call to Go-around off a bad approach. And the de-brief if I have to take control is mainly about why they didn't go-around. I actually get more of a buzz when students/FO's do bin a bad approach with zero input from me than if they wazz down the approach and pull off a greaser. Even if it shows thier PIC skills are better than their handling skills :D

[S-Works]

I am truly in the presence of a skygod...... :p:p

[Intercepted]

Since I'm completely fed up reading the immediate knee-jerk reaction "get a new instructor" thread after thread, I'm firmly in the "Why is it always the Instructor at fault?" camp :D

[wet wet wet]

The original post is far from clear, but to me it sounds like the question might be to do with the use of rudder in the flare rather than the use of nose wheel steering on landing. After all one assumes that tne student has done Ex 5 and is able to steer the C152 on the ground.

Difficult to comment further without more information, but my suspicion is that this student is still some way off going solo.

[mad_jock]

I think lazy sod would be more approprate. I just found that the student developes faster, learns quickly and developes the PIC skills earlier with the added advantage that I am sitting next to them and not when they cock it up when they are solo.

Intercepted I can sort of agree with your point. But the new instructor standard mainly due to the number that have done the rating because they can't go straight to a shiny jet. Is shocking. It doesn't help that a large majority of them have never been taught to fly a SEP properly, its all been persudo airline bollocks ops.

When I started instructing and a student came up with a strange one in a test the majority of time it came back that they had had a brain fart or had made it up. Now I would say its more common that the route cause is that they haven't been taught properly. There is virually no instructor standardisation in schools. Instructors rock up get checked out 3 circuits and then rock off on their tod with very little supervision while restricted. The restriction removal is a tick box test, and most of them will have given up by the time they have to renew by test.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Here's a parallel, when not playing with aeroplanes, I teach Jiu Jitsu on Monday evenings.

I am currently recovering from a sprained knee after a student, trying his best, incorrectly performed O Soto Gari on me a fortnight before Christmas.

He is a 4th kyu purple belt who has been training for 2 years.
I'm a 3rd Dan black belt who has been training for about 20 years, and teaching for about half of that.

Whose fault is my injury? Clearly mine, for a failure to properly teach and control the exercise we were performing. I've told him what he did wrong and what I want next time! But it's still my fault - I screwed up, I accept that.



Now take a pre-solo student who DOES NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTAND how to perform a landing. Assuming somebody is getting something wrong, let's see, we have a choice of:

- Instructor, somewhere between 300-15,000hrs, Commercial Licence with instructor rating, flying as Captain, in control of what is flown, and briefings and debriefings.

- Student, somewhere under 20 hours, no licence, not making the decisions about the brief/lesson/debrief structure, almost certainly no prior aviation knowledge to draw upon.


Incorrectly flown manoeuvres, and correction of those, are just part of the learning process, but a student who is doing a lot of circuits and has allowed to believe that they are close to solo, and has not been given adequate understanding of how they are supposed to control the aeroplane has a serious problem - and I struggle to see why it's either his fault, or just a normal part of the learning process.

I'm not an experienced instructor (although I am an instructor), but in such a case I'd have spent significant time with a whiteboard going through all this with my student BEFORE he started doing a lot of circuits, and I'd be reviewing these points as we go along. I know of nothing in instructional best practice that should be doing otherwise.

Any thoughts on that Mad Jock?, since you probably have about 100 times my instructional hours.

G

[The500man]

Since I'm completely fed up reading the immediate knee-jerk reaction "get a new instructor" thread after thread, I'm firmly in the "Why is it always the Instructor at fault?" camp

Most lilkely because it is always fed-up students asking these silly questions on pprune, and this has alot to do with all the pilots that like to count how many hours it took them to solo. Now students start getting worried they're no good if it seems to be taking them longer than the magic 15 hours or just frustrated becasue there seems to be no end in sight to them flying circuits under instruction.

It's very unlikely that a student about to solo hasn't already been taught how to taxi to the runway! Someone perhaps isn't being very truthful.

[S-Works]

Genghis, the difference being that as a CRI you have only been taught how to teach small elements from the PPL sylabus unlike an FI who is taught to teach it from end to end.

There are some quite hard judgement calls to make when teaching ab-initio as opposed to working with experienced students as a CRI.

I am not exonerating the Instructor in this case, merely pointing out to the lynch mob that both sides of the story should be heard before judging. I have flown with ab-initio students whose own opinion of there ability differed greatly from reality.......

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ghengis, the difference being that as a CRI you have only been taught how to teach small elements from the PPL sylabus unlike and FI who is taught to teach it from end to end.

I accept that, but tailwheel (where rudder use and how to land is really quite fundamental) is part and parcel of CRI flying and a lot of what I have done to date. Plus I'm really talking about teaching principles here, not the specifics of use of the pedals.

I am not criticising the instructor apparently flying the rudder (as you say, we don't know the whole picture), or at-least following through - I am criticising the level of understanding that the student has been allowed to achieve - where he thinks he's close to solo, but does not apparently know what he should be doing with the rudder pedals and how the nosewheel is mechanised.

I will criticise roundly any instructor who has allowed a student to get as far as circuits without having read and understood the POH for the aeroplane, and think I'm on pretty sound grounds in doing so. I know the C152 POH - as I'm sure do most of us here, it's pretty clear and well written on how the controls mechanise.

G

[mad_jock]

Genghis I have always though and said you would make an excellent PPL instructor and you are of course completely correct.

Personally I brought my instructional experence from scuba diving, in fact it had more to do with my style than the FIC.

The fact is that you can't teach someone to be an instructor, you can teach the some tools to help them be an instructor. But if the core isn't there to begin with it doesn't matter what you do they will never be an effective one.

You do have guys out there that have more "instructor" in them after 100 hours than an instructor with 1000 hours under thier belt.

You also have golden bollocks pilots who fly as if they are on rails but couldn't teach a bear how to **** in the woods. With these the students learn in spite of the instructor not because of them.

There are also the instructors that have the flying ability of a penguin but can quite easily produce better pilots than they are.

[S-Works]

I will criticise roundly any instructor who has allowed a student to get this far without having read and understood the POH for the aeroplane, and think I'm on pretty sound grounds in doing so.

Except you don't actually know how far this student has gotten..... As I said there is often a gulf between there own view on ability and fact. We only have his opinion that he is ready for solo as we do not know the instructors side.

I have encountered students who are adamant that they are ready for solo and who I would not let taxi let alone fly solo as long as there ass points down.

I agree that if the Instructor is not doing there job then it needs to be rectified but not on the basis of a one side story.

I accept that, but tailwheel (where rudder use and how to land is really quite fundamental) is part and parcel of CRI flying and a lot of what I have done to date.

And teaching a qualified pilot to fly anything, tailwheel or otherwise is absolutely nothing like teaching an ab-initio who know nothing...... Without being rude, you have to do it before you are quailfied to comment. Believe me, I have had my fingers burnt on that front...... :O

[Genghis the Engineer]

Two very fair points there Bose, no I've not taught ab-initio and accept that I'm in the correcting and amending, not introducing game. So far.

Also I agree that we don't know how far the instructor believes the OP has got in his flying. What we do know however is how far the OP has been allowed to believe he's got in his flying - he thinks he's close to solo. I think it's fair to be concerned about the circumstances leading somebody who *thinks* that but has big gaps in his knowledge about some real fundamentals.

Again, your points about student perception are fair - I had a tailwheel conversion who was, err, struggling. He was convinced he was close to sign-off for about 15 hours with both myself and a much more experienced instructor, and I'm quite sure that neither of us were being less than honest with him.

Original Poster - are you still here? Quick question or three - how many hours have you done?, what sort of continuity?, have you read the POH? What sort of briefings / debriefs have you been getting?

G

[S-Works]

I think it's fair to be concerned about the circumstances leading somebody who *thinks* that but has big gaps in his knowledge about some real fundamentals.

I know I keep labouring this point. But we only have his view that he is ready for solo. I would want to hear the Instructors viewpoint before I was so quick to judge.

Like I keep saying there is often a very large gulf between self opinion and fact..... :p

[mad_jock]

Get your finger out and get the ticket Genghis.

It really is a hoot and you wouldn't believe the amount of job statisfaction you get out of it.

[M-ONGO]

You have to be very wary of Internet advice on anything...

From another thread on the QXC

Statistically solo students are very very safe - instructors are paranoid about the standards they expect before sending a student up on their own, the tasks demanded of them are deliberately fairly undemanding, and the students are usually terrified of screwing up so are the most careful they'll be in their entire flying careers (except possibly when they become instructors and start sending students solo themselves!).

Just relax and learn to enjoy the flying! And do it all exactly as you've taught. And if you get lost, either turn a VOR/DME on, or call for a practice pan.

G

Such as the highlited part. This is where a CRI should stick to their field and leave advice to ab initio's to FI's...

[mad_jock]

I don't know, there will be alot of FI's out there that will give exactly the same advice.

And there is nothing in the FIC that will correct anyone if they think that its correct.

Personally I think there is an argument for CRI's to be able to teach the NAV section of the PPL. And also they could do the Trial flights as well but with a restriction that they have to do the TO and landing below 500ft.

It would make a rather nice input into instructing which would allow folk to see if they were suited for it. And also allow them to have more of clue about what they are meant to be learning in the FIC.

The FI system needs taken apart which is the fundemental problem. Although some fud will proberly say that zero to heros should get the whole lot at 170 hours like we have just now. When in fact its this sort of instructor thats pulling the whole lot down.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Get your finger out and get the ticket Genghis.

It really is a hoot and you wouldn't believe the amount of job statisfaction you get out of it.

Sooner or later I will, and I believe you on the satisfaction. It's just the minor requirement to keep doing my day-job, and to be honest for the few days a month I can spare to do instruction, there's enough work CRIing.


On the "practice pan" point - my view, right or wrong, is that a student is less likely to feel nervous of making that call, which they've made before (hopefully - the first time I ever made one was on my instructor course!), and I'd rather the student did something they feel comfortable with early, than leave it until they are starting to feel panicked. And they'll get the same result at the end of the day. Headology - or my view of it anyhow.

Personally I think there is an argument for CRI's to be able to teach the NAV section of the PPL

I have, quite legally - for an old school microlight pilot converting to NPPL(SSEA). Ditto instrument awareness and, as it happens, the rest of what's needed to pass the NPPL skill test.

But to be honest, I have no issue with real ab-inition being done exclusively by FIs and if I want to do that sort of flying - which I'll probably decide I want to sooner or later, I'll do that course.

Trial flights *could* be done by any CPL under a cheap A-A AOC, with the student/pax handing the controls as a "special category passenger" - just they can't log it.

G

[S-Works]

I don't know, there will be alot of FI's out there that will give exactly the same advice.

Thats getting into massive thread drift though. An FI is only as good as the initial training they recieve which is pretty uniform followed by the initial standardisation and subsequent supervision.

Once they have been standarised it is then down to personal motiviation which governs how they develop. This is where it varies greatly unfortunatly. There are as many Instructors dedicated to teaching as there are those who only dream of an airliner but to judge all Instructors the same is a little unfair.

I came from the CRI SE then ME along with IRI and through FI and eventually a Flight Examiner. I found the transition from CRI to FI quite difficult as the mindset of both Instructor and Student is very different when you are dealing with ab-initio and experienced students. It is much easier to teach experienced pilots who already grasp the concepts (even if you do wonder how some of them ever got a PPL!) than it is to convey concepts to someone who knows nothing. This is where the good Instructor has to be in tune with the student needs and understand the problems. A lot of Instructors sadly don't.

I rarely have contact with ab-initio anymore but I do remember clearly the trepidation of 1st solo's. It is easier to send someone of in the turbines than a PPL solo!!

So while I do agree with many of MJ's and others comments about Instruction standards, I also think that there is a lot of one sided judgement going on here that should be avoided.

[mad_jock]

On the "practice pan" point - my view, right or wrong, is that a student is less likely to feel nervous of making that call, which they've made before (hopefully - the first time I ever made one was on my instructor course!), and I'd rather the student did something they feel comfortable with early, than leave it until they are starting to feel panicked. And they'll get the same result at the end of the day. Headology - or my view of it anyhow.

Now personally I wouldn't teach it. But...

Its the fact that you have thought about the "Headology" which counts more in my book than anything else.

Although I suspect now that its been brought up you will for ever more teach them to do a Pan instead. And when teaching Nav you will get them to do a practise pan at some point.

I must admit up north we are very lucky with Scottish info. fishbangwallop and his collegues really do make the effort and are extremely good at putting students at their ease on the RT. The aera controller arn't to shabby either I might add and the approach/radar units need a note in dispatches for thier patience.

D&D have always encouraged practise calls. So I would hope that getting on the RT if unsure wouldn't be an issue for most.

[mad_jock]

An FI is only as good as the initial training they recieve which is pretty uniform followed by the initial standardisation and subsequent supervision.

Its not tho uniform these days. It can be old school or CFS or it can be persudo airline ops. Or a mish mash of both and some even make stuff up that they think is a good idea.

standardisation and subsequent supervision Also a huge gulf between schools. Most have nothing at all, others play lip service to it and others do it properly (the only ones in my experence are the ones with CFS contracts) And this is at PPL not the CPL/IR FTO's which do seem to be better.

[M-ONGO]

On the "practice pan" point - my view, right or wrong, is that a student is less likely to feel nervous of making that call, which they've made before (hopefully - the first time I ever made one was on my instructor course!), and I'd rather the student did something they feel comfortable with early, than leave it until they are starting to feel panicked. And they'll get the same result at the end of the day. Headology - or my view of it anyhow.

I wouldn't advocate bull****ting them. Just tell the truth... Student pilot unsure of position. No "practice" in there. If you were an instructor where I worked as CFI and FIC instructor, I'd have to have a word in your shell about this advice G! Agreed, however that, as BT used to say, "it's good to talk".

[Luddite aviator]

I would suggest that a student who by that stage of training is unsure of how the nose wheel steering works has not been told by the instructor.

It would follow that a this is likely to be due to poor teaching & checking.

[S-Works]

I would suggest that a student who by that stage of training is unsure of how the nose wheel steering works has not been told by the instructor.

Read the original post.

and up until now in my circuits, my instructor has controls the nose wheel when we land, so I am not getting the right feel of what happens

I would suggest that it is nothing to do with not knowing how the nose wheel works but an accusation that the Instructor is riding the controls. Now is the Instructor riding them or is he giving correct input to ensure the safety of the aircraft? We don't know as we have only heard one side of the story......

[Pilot DAR]

MJ, are you sersiously telleing me you have never followed through with a student!!?

While flying a 152, in conditions, and at a runway of suitable dimensions for training, I cannot imagine the need to "follow through" for steering. Nothing happens that fast in the yaw axis of a 152! In a taildragger, twin on one engine, or helicopter, yes, but not a 152.

Some French C150s had it [no nosewheel steering], too - I learned in one.

Perhaps you were just flying one in which the steering did not work (broken pushrod springs probably). 150's have had nosewheel steering since the beginning. Those pushrod springs form a part of the rudder control system, as they act to center the rudder, which is a part of the certification of the aircraft. It probably would not pass without them.

I 150 I was took care of was released from inspection. I test flew it. It would not track straight while taxiing, or on the runway. With some difficulty in directional control, I got it airborne. One the nosewheel extended, and the centering cam centered it, one rudder pedal went completely limp, and the plane yawed. The mechanic who had fixed to plane had reassembled the two steering pushrods left for right. One is about two inches longer than the other (to account for the two rudder pedal torque tubes being one behind the other). Thus the spring from one overpowered the other, and completely fouled the rudder control system. He was quite a while making it right, but when he did, it flew fine.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I wouldn't advocate bull****ting them. Just tell the truth... Student pilot unsure of position. No "practice" in there. If you were an instructor where I worked as CFI and FIC instructor, I'd have to have a word in your shell about this advice G! Agreed, however that, as BT used to say, "it's good to talk".

Cutting across the various criticisms of that post, by me, in another thread. It wasn't a brilliant comment and a simple "lost" / "uncertain of position", with or without a pan (probably with) is a lot more sensible.

But certainly using navaids or talking to D&D if lost during a QXC (or any other flight), whatever navaid or whatever wording is used, is a lot better than flying around getting more lost, more worried, and potentially getting into a nasty mess. So, I'm only apologising for the specific wording I used - not the principle.

I'll add in, tell your instructor what you did afterwards so that it can be properly debriefed.

Happy chaps?

G

[Will Hung]

First time I ever taxied an a/c was after landing from my ex. 14. Seriously. I never had the courage to ask my slightly un-hinged instructor if I could taxi the brick (aka G-CGHM). It's not rocket science though, and I taxied back to the parking area after landing on the slightly downhill 08 at Elstree no prob.

Who can guess my Instructors name ?

[BackPacker]

I can't begin to guess his real name, but I think one who doesn't let students taxi an aircraft until ex. 14 would tend to call himself "God".

Whether his perception matches reality though...:ugh:

[RTN11]

wow... this is quite a thread drift!

I agree that we shouldn't condem this poor instructor without hearing his side. If you asked each of my students how many more flights until they go solo, I'm sure they would give a very different answer to me. Some would say many less than I would, others would say more. This is simply because they do not know the syllabus inside out like I do, and they have no scale to judge their own ability by.

So when the OP says he is close to solo, he may well mean that his instructor intends to send him solo after the next flight. On the other hand, he could have quite a few flights left to do, fully covering flapless, glide and other circuit emergencies. On the other hand, he may simply have 11 hours and think that everyone goes solo at 12?

I agree that the instructing standards are generally quite poor. I know quite a few people who see it purely as a stepping stone to bigger things, and I hate to see them doing any more than trial lessons.

[Crash one]

Why is it considered bad form to criticise an Instructor?
During my training for NPPL I was not given stall training till well after ex14 & then I had to ask for it.
I was never gotten lost by any Instructor to find my pos, & never got lost during Nav training. Did 29hrs of correctly planned & executed nav trips including diversions. (I enjoy maths). Never called D&D for exercise, only mention of D&D was to tell me their frequency.
As a result of the latter I worry about finding where I am if I ever do get lost, 200 hrs later. But I keep meaning to call them for exercise one day, all by myself.
As for this "Follow me through" business I never learnt a thing from that, how do you "feel" what someone else is doing with the thing?
Early on I asked if I could sit in the a/c for half an hr to SEE where the brake pedals were, find all the knobs & switches BY MYSELF. I had arrived early enough to do this. Five mins into it my Instructor arrived with "Right let's go!". Continued fumbling around with feet trying to figure how the bloody brakes worked!
I once asked an Instructor what's the formula to calculate lift? "Half Ro V squared". He then walked away. Fine, my car at 60mph squared X 7.5psi = 27000. If that is pounds of lift my car should fly quite well!:ugh:
Having ranted that, I must admit I did have a few very good instructors who could teach rather than just wear the sunglasses, who waited till I screwed up & then asked me what I thought I'd done wrong etc.
I often wished Instructors would consider that we may be rookie pilots but a lot of us are not rookie people & can actually understand english so please don't think we are all, as one Instructor put it "Solid bone from the neck up". I will admit I allowed myself to be pushed through the mill without questioning rather than stir the ****e & be considered a troublemaker.
My own observations.

[RTN11]

Sounds like you had some of the worst instructors available. If the OP instructor's is as unapproachable as that, I would certainly recommend changing schools.

I always try to be as open to questions as possible. Usually after ex4, or possibly after ex6, I just sit in the aircraft with the student and ask them if there's anything they're not sure of and want me to explain, be it the suction gauge, the alternate static source, anything that I may not have already explained in full. I try to keep this going throughout the course, and any specific questions I would then refer them to the relevant section of the POH to build their familiarity with this document. It also builds in the student the attitude that there are no stupid questions, so they won't be too shy to clarify something that they think might be deemed obvious.

Perhaps I assume this is how all instructors go about their trade, but if the OP is getting less than this for his money he should certainly be talking to the school about it.

[Crash one]

I did gliding many moons ago before the power, so stalling was not an issue to me. I had several gliding instructors who were far more on the ball. One in particular, had only one eye, once we were flying his Jodel, first time I had been in a powered a/c (GA), on downwind he couldn't see too well, & said "Sod it, you do it". Not one to miss a chance I certainly did. Closed the throttle, considered it a glider. Today, perhaps not the best of ideas, but the a/c was & still is perfecly serviceable. I have no doubt that had I been about to screw up he was capable of putting things right. The only time he ever grabbed the a/c from me was during short final once at 400ft, he rolled the thing losing 200ft in a couple of seconds, said "You have" just as two Tornados screamed over us at 4/500ft!
A week later two Yanks came & apologised & bought us all a pint. Happy days.

[mary meagher]

I don't know if we are ever going to hear again from the Original Poster, I can't help thinking it may have been a windup.....however, plenty of points for discussion have arisen!

I can still remember, when I first started to learn to fly a glider at Booker I was anything but apt. Experienced instructors - almost never had the same one twice, probably thought me a hopeless case. Judging a landing was the worst trial, for me and the instructor. So on a family visit back to the US, I went to a strip in Maryland, and flew in a Cessna 152 with Instructor John Cumberpatch. On this particular airfield, prevailing wind was 90 degrees cross. John never let me actually touch down, but let me get quite close before he chickened out and took over.....

Eventually, back at Booker, dear old Dudley Steynor, who used to teach there in Tiger Months back in WWII, managed to teach me to land. After 65 airtow launches, I KNEW I WAS READY FOR SOLO, and sure enough, my instructor, Dave Oddy, climbed out the back seat, did up the straps, said "Now go by yourself, and I want to see you do a couple of practice stalls and recovery." What a moment! I said to myself "I will do exactly what I like without that B in the back seat telling me what to do!" Joy!

Since then, with PPL, and a few other ratings, I have done a fair bit of instructing in gliders, and find that when a student is ready to send safely solo, there is no doubt in my mind, he is probably flying better than me by now! But he doesn't necessarily have to know how everything works.

Couple of questions : DAR, you were pretty brave to take off with wonky steering in that 150 - tradition has it the most dangerous aircraft is just released from maintenance! And Mad Jock, how on earth do you teach a bear to **** in the woods?

[mad_jock]

very carefully.

And the quickest way is by doing nothing what so ever.

Instructors that couldn't teach one, cause the student to take longer to learn than if they had been left to work it out for themselves.

You can inherit students from this type with 20-40 hours in the circuit with 4-5 hours for the previous exercises. When you dig a bit deeper a circuit lesson was comprised of 1-2 circuits which were "dual" controlled in the flare and much of the approach. Then a demonstration usually a low level bad wx circuit with steep turns at every corner just to get the plane back to finals. The brief is "thats how you do it" then the rest of the hour is spent with the instructor getting more and more fustrated while the student gets more and more dispondant.

A spell out side the circuit going through the previous exercise and making sure they can trim properly usually cures everything.

There are students though that are quite happy with this method, the more talented ones, but most arn't. And then you have the issue that they then think its the normal way to teach someone to fly when the wheel turns and they are then in the RHS.

Note:
Not all students that are in the circuit that long because of instructor issues. There are a selection of students which have other issues usually to do with brain farts and consistency. They are denoted by not managing to link up all the phases of the circuit without making a mistake. Very often its a different mistake every time. Which is a far harder problem to solve.

[Luddite aviator]

Quote- When you are flaring and about 3' from the runway, just about to land, when the nose wheel touches down, does it castor and if so do you have to control it .

Why do you just read the bits of a post that supports your thinking on the issue?, clearly the guy has failed to understand if the NLG is Centers, Castors or has to be steered as it touches down. this looks like poor understanding of the system and hence poor instruction because the instructor has failed to check if the guy knows the system.

It's all about quality control, teach, practice and then check.

[Crash one]

MJ
I remember finding it difficult to get the thing trimmed while downwind, then having to do it all again on base leg. "Trim for 90knots/60 etc". I now have my own bug smasher which I can trim to 60 downwind which gives me more time to think/look. Also a bit of thread drift, you mention low level sharp turns & such. Why is it that flying schools (civilian) teach this square circuit thing? I operate out of a farm strip & am teaching myself to do the continuous radius turn from downwind to final & it feels safer, no sharp "dead mans corner" stuff. Opinion??

[mad_jock]

I believe and might be wrong buts its to do with high wing aircraft. And lack of good look out with the wing dipped all the way round. Where as square work for both high and low winged aircraft.

There is something wrong though with the instructor throwing it around at 500ft doing 60 deg banked turns in order to expedite the circuit ending with the student brain dead as you wang it round on finals while haulling all the flap in and suddenly ending up configured, on speed and on profile at 200ft.
Yes piece of piss to do when you know what your doing and current on the machine but it doesn't exactly create a good learning enviroment or for that matter teach good habits.

[Crash one]

I'll go for that, my Emeraude does have a low wing which I agree helps.
I did once do it at Perth (152) from a bit too close & was convinced I had missed the runway (right turn onto 27) I was extremely surprised when I rolled out bang on centre 150ft, pure luck because I couldn't see a thing. My daughter was impressed!!!

Edit: What bad/good habits?

[S-Works]

Quote- When you are flaring and about 3' from the runway, just about to land, when the nose wheel touches down, does it castor and if so do you have to control it .

Why do you just read the bits of a post that supports your thinking on the issue?, clearly the guy has failed to understand if the NLG is Centers, Castors or has to be steered as it touches down. this looks like poor understanding of the system and hence poor instruction because the instructor has failed to check if the guy knows the system.

It's all about quality control, teach, practice and then check.

What on earth are you going on about it. What utter tosh. I have read his whole post and am not seeing anything about a lack of understanding of steering but an accusation of the instructor interfering. I have not expressed any 'thinking' I have merely stated that we don't know both sides of the story and shoud not be quick to judge.

How much time do you have as an Instructor?

[Luddite aviator]

The first part of the post as you say looks like the instructor is hovering on the controls, the second part is clearly a technical question that shows a lack of student knowlage about the nose wheel steering system.

As I am new on these forums I am assuming that you are working with a EASA level 3 English and have not fully grasped that the second part of the post was a question.

[S-Works]

As I am new on these forums I am assuming that you are working with a EASA level 3 English and have not fully grasped that the second part of the post was a question.

Then as you are new to the forums I suggest you learn a few manners and save the sarcasm and personal insults for elsewhere.

If you bothered to read any of my posts on this subject, I have merely pointed out that we should not be quick to judge the Instructor without both sides of the story. At the moment it is all very one sided and looking at the lack of response from the original poster seems likely to be a troll.

[mad_jock]

Even if it is a troll.

Its a good reminder to the 200 odd FI(R) issued in 2009-2010 to keep there sodding hands and feet off the controls when the student is flying.

Luddite give it a rest Bose X knows his ****e we might not agree on some minor style points but that doesn't detract from the fact that the victim/student is either given a fair test or quality training.

[fattony]

Before I did my first solo (only about five months ago) I remember wondering how much of the work I was doing during approach and landing, and how much my instructor was doing. So I asked him how much control input he was making with his feet and he said "none".

I didn't have the time or mental capacity to concentrate on landing the plane while simultaneously looking at what my instructor was doing. I'm guessing the OP just had a similar question to me and may not have had the sense or confidence to ask his/her instructor.

Either that or the post is a troll...

[Cows getting bigger]

As a mere FI/FE(A), I certainly have my feet near the pedals at all times during the flare/landing. Call it habit, sense of self preservation or what you will. However, there is a big difference between shadowing control inputs (together with the occasional inadvertent application of resistance as I have failed to anticipate the actions of the student) and making a positive input on the controls.

There is one other thing to consider in a 152. Anyone over about 5'8" has little option but to have his feet near the pedals save his knees getting in the way of the yoke. That is unless the seat is fully back on the rails but then how does the instructor manage to take control when necessary?

[500 above]

Air Accidents Investigation: Gulfstream G150, D-CKDM (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/december_2011/gulfstream_g150__d_ckdm.cfm)

Speaking of incorrect foot positioning....

[mad_jock]

I am 6' and always been full back on the rails in cessna 150/152. Have no problem whats so ever taking control and its bloody uncomfy teaching in them keeping my feet completely clear of the controls for the student.

Hovering or shadowing just winds the student up to hell.

Which is one of the reasons why I hate instructing in the things and much prefer the tommy which is alot more comfy for all concerned.

[Cows getting bigger]

Yes, but is a well known fact that most Scots have very short, spindley legs and exceedingly long bodies. The sooner you lot get independence the better. :)

[mad_jock]

Aye right. And irish have big flat feet to help them when they are bog trotting hence your problems keeping them clear.

[Helicopterdriverguy]

I'm on 6 hours training at the moment in a French C150 and loving it, im confident enough to do circuits and my instructor has the confidence in me to not touch the controls the whole flight. When I did my first landing it was the best feeling ever and im pretty sure the instructor didn't touch the pedals even then. Maybe your instructor had a bad turn with a student when he had the rudder on landing/takeoff?. Just tell him you would like to take full control for at least one landing to show him you can do it without bad things happening. On a near solo flight i do find this baffling he doesn't trust you yet.

[mary meagher]

500 above - that Gulfstream reluctance to depart from Northolt reminds me of an exciting takeoff in a 172 near Baltimore, Maryland. ( Cessnas have toe brakes. My usual chariot has heel brakes.)

I was going to rent a Beechcraft Sundowner, but when the seat was brought forward enough for my short little arms to reach the controls, the seatbelt no longer applied. We had a short trip across the bay with me in the righthand seat, just for the experience, and the instructor tried to frighten me with an engine failure scenario (not a problem if you usually don't have any engine to worry about). But on our return I said I guess I better rent your 172 instead, lets have a quick circuit just to make sure, so we strapped in after a hasty DI, and made for the runway. Instructor was in a hurry because his next lesson was due. I'm sure you can figure out what was set up to happen next.

Anyhow, rolled onto the runway, no traffic at all. Full power. Began to roll. Not a lot. In fact the brakes were grabbing at the wheels. Halfway down the runway we had only accelerated to 45 mph, the poor bird really wanted to fly, so I hoiked it off, and we roared over the treetops, collecting some sample leaves and scaring the squirrels. The instructor just sat there numb. I said, the brakes were grabbing, do you think the handbrake may still be set? He thought that might be the case. I said better land on the grass, just in case they are still set.....so I did, and asked him to do the next takeoff, which was without any problem. Halfway down the downwind leg, I realised what I had done wrong....and had been blaming it on the airplane.

They still rented it to me.

[Piltdown Man]

...and my instructor has the confidence in me to not touch the controls the whole flight.

That's the sort of pupil we like. Just let us fly and you can watch how it's done.

PM

[mad_jock]

:E you a bad man pilt :D

[Pilot DAR]

Back before I was a truly responsible pilot, I was asked to ferry a 172 up to another local airport, rather than taking my plane as intended. The 172 had just had an inspection, and was needed up there for training. It was not convenient for me, but I did as a favour.

When I taxied out on the grass, it was pulling to the left. I saw that wheel would not turn. It seemed very happy to slide on the wet grass, and I was late already, so I tried a takeoff roll/slide. It was fine on the grass, and I was airborne pretty well as normal. Upon arrival, I landed on the grass runway, still wet with the morning dew, and taxied up to the pave ramp. I stopped short, and shut down. The instructor who had arranged all of this at the last minute gave me a foul look, and asked why I had not taxied all the way in.

I told him: "you'll figure it out....", and handed him the keys.

Apparently when the maintainer swapped out a brake part, he did not think to actually check it was the right part, and that the brake functioned properly. One of my many lessons on being very careful with recently maintained airplanes.....

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi, I am sure from my first PPL lesson, I was told to use the rudder pedals to taxi, and maintain the nose wheel on the yellow lines all the way around the airfield, even on the 90 degree corners, of which there were many.

For my first T/O at 4 hours, the instructor said to wait for 60 knots, so I watched the ASI... 45, 50, 55.... Then he said 'Watch where you are going', as we were about to mow down the runway edge lights! Still not too sure if this was an instructor induced rudder control, but I certainly remember that lesson.

If the OP has no idea of what the rudder pedals, and brakes do, he should be asking more questions.

[dont overfil]

Did you not notice how old this thread is?

He'll have his FI rating by now and bu55ering up his own students.

D.O.

[Croqueteer]

:cool:DAR, "responsible pilot" is an oxymoron.

[Pilot DAR]

I'm hoping I'll get there one day. In the mean time, I like to offer the illusion to which new pilots might aspire....

[piperboy84]

I have no opinion on if the instructor is right or wrong as I'm not qualified to give an opinion, but from a low time VFR duffer who also learned in a 152 , I would not sweat the details of the steering thing in the kind of winds a student is landing in initially as trike keeps itself pretty much straight and you will get a feel for the application of rudder naturally , the biggest thing that helped me learn to do a half decent landing was always reminding myself when entering the flare to look right down the end of the runway (EVERYTIME) to get a better gauge of where you are above the ground and not solely"localise" your perception of your position by looking just over the cowling.

Again I am NOT an instructor, but perhaps a tip that worked for me may help you. As mentioned in another post here before you fly a particular model of plane I strongly advise reading the POH from cover to cover then going out and poking around the plane with book in hand to get the best understanding of the entire craft and systems as possible, If you are in the 152 for your entire training go on to the lycoming website and download the operators manual for the engine model you have, in addition to guidance on best operator practices such as carb heat use, starting and power settings etc, it gives you a better understanding of the engine that may not be covered as part of the PPl syllabus.

Good luck with your training.