Strange flight training practices

[Horatio Leafblower]

Had a student change flying schools recently and while reviewing their understanding of the stuff they needed to understand, they revealed a few odd practices from their old school.

A selection:

1/. Students were not taught to lean the mixture until after they passed their PPL;

2/. No diversions were ever "sprung" on the student but notified and planned in advance (including diversions on flight tests)

3/. no allowance made for climb fuel in the fuel plan

4/. no flight plans or SARTIMES were ever lodged "because there was always someone at the school to hold company SAR".

These gems have all been verified to me by a Grade 1 instructor from that school.

The schools instructor body is strongly populated by the schools graduates and each of these items, in my view, represent a major failing on the CFI's part to adequately train their charges for the big bad world beyond.

Are these practices justifiable? Is it really so hard to teach someone to fly a C172 that leaning at PPL level is just a bit too much of a stretch? :uhoh:

If I had a PPL candidate who failed to lean the mixture (at all, let alone correctly) on their flight test it would be a pretty short test. :ugh:

[SgtBundy]

I am fairly sure I did mixture control on my first student flight as part of effects of controls.

[Jack Ranga]

We certainly don't teach anything like that, what are WE going to do about it chaps?....................

[dubbleyew eight]

wasn't there a concern years ago about a certain flavour of school where students became instructors and taught students at the school who became instructors who taught students who became instructors etc etc.

you dont hear much about it now since a recruiting drive moved many of them on to the regulator.

keep on leafblowing mate but do spray the feet with water to dissolve the clay.

:mad:

[wheatbix]

Watching and hearing about the degradation of training standards in the industry at some schools is scary.

The common practice at a few schools of freshly minted CPLs doing their instructor rating (after achieving a nvfr rating) then teaching with no operational experience does not a good student make. Hearing what some of these "god's gift to aviation" instructors say on the radio is testament to a lack of professionalism and lack of airmanship that is becoming more and more mainstream in both the fixed wing and helicopter industry. Anyone can teach a monkey to fly. Teaching the monkey to think for itself is the hard part.

In part and at times it seems that instructing is becoming a process of chinese whispers. Not sure if anyone else feels the same but it is just something I've witnessed over the past few years.

[Arm out the window]

The chinese whispers thing is certainly true, and it's easy to see how that can give rise to and perpetuate furphies.

Have things changed since the 'old days' though? Is becoming an instructor to build hours immediately after CPL anything new, and if not, aren't these issues just the same now as then?

I guess 30-40 years ago there were wartime veterans in the system and people who'd been taught directly by same, but that would have filtered out by now as the old fellas dropped off the twig - what other factors are causing change I wonder? Not challenging the point per se but just thinking out loud.

[Oktas8]

Point 3 above talks about allowing for climb fuel. When I was a young & enthusiastic instructor, I asked my students to calculate climb fuel. Then I realised it made no practical difference (at the altitudes typically available). Cruising for 2 hours at 9000' would of course be a different story.

[airwolf117]

1) I know in my flight school we were shown, but realistically during GFPT you dont need to lean the mixture very much. We did it on the ground during taxi so as not to foul the plugs, but once airborne we rarely went above 2000ft (only for stalls).

2) Yeah this is odd.

3) The rule I was shown was 1 extra minute per 2000ft climb. So climb to 9000ft, add 5 min to your cruise fuel. On a 172, it works out pretty close, esp with all the variable fuel reserves and margins built in.

4) I can understand the logic, but I think students need to practice lodging flight notes, as it is tricky when you first start.

[Oracle1]

Welcome to the flight training sausage factory where students are taught to comply not to fly

[Jabawocky]

I am with Leafie on this, and I bet the majority of schools that do teach leaning on the ground do it wrong as well.

Leaning below 2000', heck if I am anything but climbing, or chasing someone down :E I am running LOP. Now doing a lot of basic training area stuff and such full rich may be the go, but the secret here is to know what is appropriate. (there is a course for this, Sydney 8-10 Nov ;) ).

As for climb fuel, sure this may not matter on a short local 1500' sortie, I agree, but what we want to have taught is good practises, so that when it does matter, they remember to do it, and how to do it.

airwolf,
As an example, I have just run a quick 1hr 40 min flight, that I do often. Planned fuel for today's winds is 78L with a Variable of 12 and a fixed of 32L.

If I used the airwolf school method as you were shown, for this plan at A080 we add 4 minutes of cruise, That would be 2.9L + 72L = 74.9L. My figures are based on me leaning in the climb to a target EGT method, and compared to your typical flying school method, the burn would be 80-81L so the actual amount of difference may not be serious, and an error of 5-6L might not run you out of course, but it is a bit sloppy in terms of planning. In the absence of known climb data, it is better than nothing of course.

Diversions....SARTIMES :uhoh:

Ohh dear, what else is not taught? The problem is we do not know what we don't know.

[RogerRamjet01]

They do sound like strange practices indeed. I / we never taught anything like that.

The fuel to climb issue might be a result of a School operations manual requiring a cover-all conservative fuel flow being used in planning. Which is not an excuse for a student not knowing the POH fuel flows, I agree.

There are certainly issues with the training industry, in that fresh CPLs with instructor ratings do not by definition have the long years of aviation experience that they could impart to students. This is not a new problem, and is bemoaned on these boards with monotonous regularity. What would be far more interesting is hearing ideas from others out there of how these problems could be reduced.

Bear in mind to that there are good insturctors, and schools, out there that do their best to teach safe and competent pilots.

[wheatbix]

If the conditions (wages, time slots, expectations, atmosphere) improved at flying schools, I'm sure they'd have a better chance of attracting experienced pilots and instructors.

[training wheels]

IMHO, part of the problem is that most flying schools have their students take full tanks on navexs so even if they were sloppy in their fuel planning, it wouldn't matter much. Have them take 'minimum required fuel' might get them more motivated to plan with diligence.

[VH-XXX]

Hey Horatio, stop bagging out my flying school :O

1/. Students were not taught to lean the mixture until after they passed their PPL;


This was pretty much the case for me. Rarely did a flight go over 2,000 - 3,000 ft so it was never raised until very late in the piece, in fact it may have been during a pre-licence test NAV. The explanation given wasn't fantastic either. The instructor hadn't been to Jabba's school of engine management.

4/. no flight plans or SARTIMES were ever lodged "because there was always someone at the school to hold company SAR".

This has also been the case at every school that I have ever been to other than for PPL flight test and AFR's. In fact from memory I did submit flight plans but have never submitted a SAR time to the authorities throughout my dealings with any flying school, ever. Due to your point number 4.

[Homesick-Angel]

If a school owns the aircraft I would say that caring for the aircraft is taught from the beginning, and as such I think they take more care in who they hire to teach.

Saying that tho, someone earlier made the point that 30 years ago people might have been taught by retired military pilots. I'm sure this would have been good for stick and rudder and a number of other skills, but without a doubt the MOST dangerous pilots I encounter in the air are guys trained around that time.

Guys 50+ who own their own aircraft and fly just enough each year to stay
Unsafe.. Blasting through the cct without a care, long conversations with each other on busy ctafs about how nice the weather is , non standard procedures etc etc

No offence, that's just my experience..

Until the pay becomes better, most instructors will be on a path elsewhere . Doesn't mean they can't do a good job while their doing it..

[The Green Goblin]

The school I learnt to fly at didn't lean aircraft at GFPT level. It was introduced at PPL level and a matter of course for CPL level.

Climb fuel was never calculated as a more conservative company fuel burn figure was employed for the duration of the flight.

In the grand scheme of things a few litres here or there is no big deal. Flight training just teaches you to be safe. Operational efficiency comes through employment, and you fly the ship the way the boss wants you too. Of course every time you move to a different operator, the game changes. Even when operating the same type. Be adaptable.

In the real world of aviation we try to keep things as simple and as easy as possible. Pilots love to overcomplicate things, particularly the airline wannabes and hopefuls or the crusties high and mighty on their lofty perch, preaching superiority over their brainwashed flock. If you just work on a solid basic foundation in your flying and preparation, the battle is won. The engine is not going to fail because you didn't lean it. It might fail in time if you didn't lean it properly.

You're not going to run out of fuel because you didn't account for climb fuel on top of your cruise burn in a light aircraft. You might overlook something in your planning because you wasted time and head space on it. You are not going to destroy a small engine running it rich in the training area. You might have a mid-air collision with another aircraft because you were not paying attention to where you were going.

Keep it simple!

[Mach E Avelli]

I am with you Green Goblin. K.I.S.S. Some people in GA (and airlines) just love to make stuff more complicated than it need be. I think a lot of it has to do with our generally benign Aussie skies which bore them. Idle hands and all that.
If they had to fly in really poor weather, or a really busy environment, maybe they would not have time to dream up unnecessary B.S. and would certainly come to realise that there are more critical things out there than 1 or 2 litres per hour of fuel optimisation.

The time to learn the niceties of climb planning and leaning (other than in the cruise, when applicable) is after the basics of keeping it blue side up have been mastered.
More effort should go in to ensuring that students can mentally compute fuel remaining and ETAs while under pressure. My old RAAF instructor would not even give me access to a 'prayer wheel' computer or a protractor for cross country work. They were used to plan the flight, then locked in the boot. The only cockpit navaids allowed were a chart and a pencil.
Also, harking back to when I learned to fly, I would like to see more training done when the wind is howling, rain is bucketing down and the scud is barely above MSA. That approach teaches students to know how far they can go, and a bit of respect for the elements.
Today's flying schools are breeding a bunch of pussies.

[BreakNeckSpeed]

Mach: I would like to see more training done when the wind is howling, rain is bucketing down and the scud is barely above MSA. That approach teaches students to know how far they can go, and a bit of respect for the elements.Couldn't agree more, but this again comes back to the fact that the guys teaching have (in many cases) never been exposed to such scenarios themselves. How can one hope to teach a skill they have not yet mastered themselves?

The dumbing down of the species seems to be happening in order to fill some junior pilot's (instructor's) log book without him/her having to leave the comfort and security of the circuit/training area.

Instructing should not be a means of building experience, rather a chance for others to benefit from yours!

[Homesick-Angel]

Thank you GG
A lot of schools get their students lost up their own ar8es before they can fly S+L.
I've spent many an hour trying to remedy pilots from heavy SOP sausage factories who know the POH backwards but can't fly for Sh1t.

[dhavillandpilot]

You all need to read Ernest K Ganns book Fate is the Hunter.

In the book he describes, as a young co pilot on a DC2 his captain at night told him to lower his seat and fly on instruments. The captain then proceeded to light matches and flick them in front of the young Gann.

It wasn't until years later when Gann was the captain and entered the mother of all thunder storms did the lessons as a young co pilot be realised. Simply ignore outside influences and FLY THE AIRCRAFT.

To every instructor I would suggest this book is mandatory reading for both pupil at instructor.

[Aussie Bob]

At least two people in this very thread have given "not going above 2000 - 3000 feet the reason for not leaning. Struth, words fail me. You should lean in the cruise at any altitude even at 500 feet. An accurate fuel flow gague would quickly show you the error of your ways. Guess you blokes aren't paying for the fuel.

[Jabawocky]

Fate is the Hunter....10/10 must read. I might just have to read it again....but I get scared :uhoh:

Bob.......90% and LOP :ok: :} You can do 100% but there is a story that WON'T be going on here. ;)


Sorry for the thread drift folks.

[NZFlyingKiwi]

Just adding my 2cents from across the ditch:

1) I was originally taught what I think is now unfortunately the more popular idea that leaning is something you don't bother with if you're below 3000ft. Now I also believe that during my PPL training I was above 3000ft for possibly two or three lessons, so that goes to show how much training I was given on leaning! My thinking now however, which I do encourage in my students, is you should lean any time you're going to be in straight and level for more than a few minutes! For a moderately large flying school/club you could save thousands of dollars a year doing this. We also lean on the ground, which prevents the otherwise almost inevitable (in our aeroplanes at least) carry on of having to set more power and lean the hell out of the mixture in the runup to clear plug fouling!

2) To me the idea of telling a student where you're diverting to in advance is ludicrous, at my club we make very certain the student doesn't know where they're diverting to, and on at least a couple of occasions I've accidentally let it slip/been overhead and then gone and changed it to somewhere else to maintain "realism". Of course there is nothing wrong with having an airfield which you are planning on diverting to if you can't make your destination, that in itself is good planning, but that's also relatively easy even for a low hour pilot to do. The unexpected diversion to an unexpected airfield is where people catch themselves out.

3) To be fair we don't calculate fuel burn for the climb, however we do emphasise the fact that our hourly consumption figures are typically very slightly higher than the actual cruise consumption which helps balance it out. The consumption figures most commonly given are also normally based (at least at lower altitudes) on not leaning the mixture, for which refer point 1 above!

4) We have the Spidertracks flight tracking system in our aircraft which makes filing a sarwatch somewhat unnecessary (yes I know more people looking out for you is never a bad thing, but you do have to stop at some point!) however it is compulsory for all of our students to file a flight plan/sarwatch on their pre-PPL crosscountries so that when they fly somebody else's aeroplane (or the Spidertracks isn't available for whatever reason) they know what to do!

Another one which I have found is quite common in some of the so called sausage factory students is filing a sarwatch for the very end of a multi-leg journey "to make it easy" which is going to be cold comfort when you crash 15 minutes into the flight and no one comes looking for you for 5 hours.

[the_rookie]

Bob; I think they mean no leaning because up to gfpt your never really flying straight enough or at the same altitude to be able to lean the mixture properly. Ie practicing steep turns, stalls etc

[Aussie Bob]

The other problem is a lot of folk are learning in Jabiru or Rotax powered devices with no mixture. When they move on to better power plants mixture is often skimmed over and the conversion training doesn't include any navigation.

[Horatio Leafblower]

OK

Some interesting answers and many of them very accurate and true within limits.

Just to add some more context to the discussion:

- the student holds a CPL

- The student is starting a NVFR

- The student has already done 15-20 hours night training at this other school

- in my opinion, 15 minutes of circling to get up to LSALT (at 3 points) is enough fuel to add it into the flight plan.

How about this one:

- Studes on a solo Nav (PPL and CPL) weren't allowed to actually land at any intermediate waypoint but were instructed to only overfly.

I have heard of Ultralight schools only allowing "accompanied solo" but I had never heard of a GA school doing this.

- Leaning the mixture on a cross-country flight is normal and is a normal part of engine management. It can make 20-30% difference to the fuel flow or more, not the 1-2 litres some people (above) have suggested.

- The climb fuel thing: Yeah block fuel for Day VFR, fair enough. But not for Night VFR.

- Sartimes and flight plans: What does the ATOM say about PPL flight test conduct? CPL flight test conduct?

...If you are turning a student out as a PPL (let alone a CPL) and they haven't got the skills to lodge a VFR flight notification... :ugh:

The Green Goblin:

In the real world of aviation we try to keep things as simple and as easy as possible. (snip)... The engine is not going to fail because you didn't lean it. It might fail in time if you didn't lean it properly.

You're not going to run out of fuel because you didn't account for climb fuel on top of your cruise burn in a light aircraft. ...(snip)

All of that is true to some extent but if you are Night VFR and you don't count the 16 minutes of climb fuel AND you don't lean the mixture enroute, you will probably find yourself walking home (or more likely, never walking again).

KISS principle is wonderful but it shouldn't come at the expense of competent operation of the aircraft. :*

[Jacobs well]

Yes, instructed for many years,was taught to a standard not a price.Then moved thru the ranks to instruct my self,taught to a standard and was asked to change my technique by a few schools.That ended my instructing life,but every CPL student received a copy of Fate is the Hunter on passing, to read on their long nightfreight flights
Always a standard not a price!

[RatsoreA]

It's been quite a few years since I did my M/E NVFR, but a CPL holder, continuing NVFR instruction, with 15-20 hours of instruction already, and still doesn't have the sticker in the book?

That doesn't seem right?!

Also, don't they teach how to get LSALT enroute? I know you can't always do that, but surely instead of planning A to B and having to spend 10-15 overhead A to get to LSALT isn't terribly efficient, when you could plan one or several intermediate points along the way with lower LSALTs? Same applies for night arrivals? Accurate fuel planning would still be important, in either of these scenarios! When the time comes to use the NVFR rating, you might not be able to take full fuel if its conducted entirely at night, or if you're just using it to extend your hours of operation, by the time you've arrived after dark and have to divert, knowing how much fuel you have would be fairly important?!

[maxgrad]

Pilots (loose term) apply for entry level jobs in the industry.
A great many have an attitude of "I know it and I just need to get into the airline........dadadadadada"
On pre employment check flights they struggle with the absolute basics.

Put simply, training prior to employment is schetchy at best, down right pointless at worst.
It may be training and /or the person being trained but the outcome mostly is very average.
As a side point, if it is the person, I believe it is the instructor and the flying organisation that is responsible for adjusting the person and teaching the realities of the industry and of airmanship.

Operators then have a degraded pool to choose from. Operators carry the responsibility to then train the pilots, (note train and not retrain).

Who's at fault?

Flying schools?
Operators?
The person?
My guess is the monitoring and action to the syllabus.

All in all, a right pain in the arse at the end of the day.

[Oracle1]

The other problem is a lot of folk are learning in Jabiru or Rotax powered devices with no mixture. When they move on to better power plants


The Rotax is a far better engine than any lycoming or Continental

[Horatio Leafblower]

RatsoreA - mate the candidate's history is irellevant - but in this case they ran out of money and had a 12-month break from flying during their NVFR training.

Re: climbing enroute - you look at the ERC and tell me how you are going to depart Scone for Tamworth Night VFR "while climbing to LSALT enroute" :hmm:

...oh and show me the bit in Jepps that says you can go beyond 3nm at less than LSALT? I'll give you a head start and refer you to page AU-807 para 3.6.11 :=

[The Green Goblin]

Horatio,

Who ever said anything about not leaning the mixture enroute?

I said at a GFPT level burning around in the training area while learning to fly the aeroplane, i.e stick and rudder suff, leaning the mixture is not that important.

Just as when learning to navigate, it's not that important to account for climb fuel in an aeroplane that is burning 24 L/ph at best, and 44 L/ph at worst (depending on type).

Let's use your 16 minute example on a 'heavy single'. 60 L/ph cruise and 75 L/ph climb.

16 minutes at 75 L/ph = 20L

16 minutes at 60 L/ph = 16L

We are talking 4L difference to get to 8000ish feet if your performance is 500 ft/pm ROC.

On something like a 172 we are probably talking 2 litres difference.

I personally think the time (in your allotted planning time) is better spent reading NOTAMS, studying Australia's completely and utterly ridiculous airspace, weather, suitable, adequate and emergency landing points etc etc etc.

PS the aeroplane doesn't know if it's dark, over water, or flying IFR!

[The Green Goblin]

Oh,

Just worked out you are talking about climbing to a LSALT prior to embarking on a NAVEX.

Well strike me pink.

I think someone who is learning to fly NVFR may have got a few things sorted by then, such as leaning, flight planning, etc etc.

It's called experience, you know, that stuff you can read about and gain without doing it, :D

[Horatio Leafblower]

Let's use your 16 minute example on a 'heavy single'. 60 L/ph cruise and 75 L/ph climb.

16 minutes at 75 L/ph = 20L

16 minutes at 60 L/ph = 16L


Thanks for the maths lesson.

Flight time from Scone to Tamworth was 38 minutes. I am sure you would agree that the fuel required to circle to 6500 within 3nm (ie: going nowhere) would be a significant addition to the flight fuel required? :8

38 minutes cruise @ 24lph = 15.2 lts
Climb fuel @ (say) 32lph = 9 lts
Plus 15% variable = 27.6 lts
plus 45 min FR = 19 lts tot 47 lts required, plus any alternates and operational requirements.

This was a short leg with fuel at both ends.

I am sure you would agree the student should have been taught to calculate the correct fuel required.

The leg didn't need to be much longer to become critical and a "she'll be right" attitude to fuel planning is not conducive to a long life expectancy.

Night flying in a Single (espec a slow one) is one of the most dangerous things we do. YOU HAVE TO KNOW YOUR **** cos if it all goes wrong you have very very limited options :*


Re your re-post (above) - thank god for that I thought I was going insane. :D

THE POINT OF THE THREAD being that this person was AT BEST taught these dubious practices by inbred junior instructors at a school of Chinese-Whispers.
BUT NO: A Grade 1 instructor from that school has verified that these are the NVFR techniques enforced BY THE CFI.

[Ultralights]

Rotax powered devices with no mixture. When they move on to better power plants mixture is often skimmed over
HAHAHAAHA thanks for the laugh.... its 2013 isnt it? Why do we still have mixture controls? oh thats right. dinosaur technology Vs modern engine.


but i have to agree with Aussie Bob, lean in cruise regardless of Altitude. how many of those students with the dont lean below 3000 BS go when operating from a higher and hotter airfield once licenced and Density alt comes into play?

then again, i have flow with some CPL's recently from other schools i would not give an RAAus certificate to.

[Jabawocky]

Hey UL

Lets not start a Old Vs New war :E Now what is the vastly better BSFC of the Rotax V a good old Lycosaurus or TCM big banger? :E

Just coz i like ya I will give you a rough bit of help, based on the old 75% power comparison rate, The 912 is 19.2L/hr and my old dino-piston is 49.54L/hr so that is 2.58 times the fuel for 3.34 times the ponies ;)

:ok:

[RatsoreA]

HLB,

I specifically said it wouldn't apply in every situation!

I know you can't always do that

But, for example, the LSALT from YSBK TO YSCN isn't very much, and in a machine with sufficient performance, LSALT could be nearly reached well within that 3nm boundary. If you're heading to YSCB for example, that slight diversion off track (being careful of the control steps if you're trying to do this OCTA) means you're well on your way, climbing to the next leg LSALT while someone the other guy has just gained his height over YSBK.

Like I said, doesn't work with every flight/departure/arrival combination.

And the point I was making about the candidates history was that there are less scrupulous schools out there that do like to to teach to a price... Theirs. Not saying that's the case here, but it does happen.

But, I was agreeing with you, or I thought so anyways?!

[Tinstaafl]

A helicopter instructor accompanied me the other day in C414. Here in the US an instrument rating is a prerequisite for an instructor rating. He's preparing for getting his Helicopter Instrument Instructor rating. Flying with me he got to log his first ever actual IMC!

[Clare Prop]

I think a lot of the chinese whispers originated when the wheel was reinvented and POHs were replaced with AFMs which didn't have any of the power setting tables etc.

EG when I first came here I was told all sorts of "one size fits all" rubbish about RPM and MAP settings..(don't get me started on the oversquare bulldust! :ugh::ugh:) having flown Saratogas before coming to Aus I was astounded by this, then realised that the instructors really, really didn't know any better as they had no effective reference material other than "My instructor always told me blah blah" without any depth of thought..often just a thin veneer of knowledge that no amount of bling can make up for.

Similarly stuff about when to apply carb heat and turn off electric fuel pumps etc was "Over here we do it this way" and how the pommie way (as per the POH ) was all wrong and didn't apply in Australia.

This was decades ago but when I do AFRs I realise that nothing has changed.

The Day VFR Syllabus has it all there, but a lot of instructors seem to have never even seen it (student records often being a tick and flick exercise) let alone used it as a reference document. It doesn't seem to figure in Instructor courses, where it seems the only barrier to entry is financial wherewithal and not competency and ability to actually do the job.

[Centaurus]

Talk about bad teaching practices. Just about every flying school in Australia teaches the before landing checklist as "Undercarriage down and locked" even though the aircraft is a fixed landing gear aircraft. Yet you can bet the manufacturer's Pilot Information Handbook does not include this extraordinary check item. Nor does the AFM.

I am informed by a flying instructor at my local flying school that the reason for requiring the student to call undercarriage down and locked on a fixed gear aircraft, is that one day the pilot might fly a retractable and therefore is a GOOD THING to get used to.
I see. Then in that case should not the student call "undercarriage up and Locked" in a fixed gear aircraft for the after take off checklist - just to be consistent? Funnily enough I have never heard that used:ok:

[Jabawocky]

Oracle, mate,
Lycoming 540 .474

A turbonormalized Continental 520 or 550 (8.5:1 compression) running Gami injectors and lean of peak cruises with a BSFC of .39 to .41 according to TAT data.

Rotax Carby .45
0.474, well I can make any of the run that way too......but I think you will find the Lyco is in the 0.40 range as well. Do your numbers on real data. You know what I mean ;) I just did.

Confucius say; Don't tell a man something impossible when he already doing it! :ok:


Where the rotax engine wins is reliability longevity and ease/cost of maintenance
I agree they are a great little power plant, no doubt, but $$per HP I am not convinced, the Lyc 540's are 3+ times the HP and not costing more than 3 times the $$, so could be a tough argument.

Major thread drift here.:ooh:

[TOUCH-AND-GO]

I am informed by a flying instructor at my local flying school that the reason for requiring the student to call undercarriage down and locked on a fixed gear aircraft, is that one day the pilot might fly a retractable and therefore is a GOOD THING to get used to.
I see. Then in that case should not the student call "undercarriage up and Locked" in a fixed gear aircraft for the after take off checklist - just to be consistent? Funnily enough I have never heard that used

Sorry to burst your bubble their Centaurus, but our flying school and another that I know of actually get their students to Call '200ft', Flaps Up, Gear Up and locked, check track.! :}

T&G :ok:

[Oktas8]

A very large flying school at which I used to work, had two wheels up landing accidents in the space of three years (none before or after, so far at least). Both were during dual asymmetric circuit training, where instructors did not complete the landing checklist and ignored the gear warning from over-familiarity.

I wonder if anyone anywhere has suffered a wheels up incident simply as a result of negative training from fixed gear aircraft? I suspect not. If I'm correct, the "gear down" call in a fixed gear aircraft is statistically irrelevant. It just doesn't seem to be a common human factors error.

Much better IMO to teach students to set a standard power on base. If the attitude and power are correct but the aircraft is not descending as it should, it's a good clue that the gear and flap isn't where it normally is. This also focuses attention where it should be (power, speed and aim point) not on written checklists.

[Aussie Bob]

More thread drift but I cant help meself ...

It trounces the air cooled stuff in the training environment because the temps around the valve train are always stable in circuit training. I think you will find that the rotax engine is now doing more training hours than any other piston engine in Australia and its no surprise why. The only problem is it only makes 100 ponies.

I like the Rotax donk but I am not sure this is true. Let's see, I get my 180 horse Scout and I perform a normal landing with a powered approach. When I shut down at the hanger door the cylinder temp is 325.

Next I turn up over the top at 2500 and pull the power right back to idle. I fly a glide approach, don't touch the power and manage (fluke perhaps) to arrive at the hanger door without using the throttle at all. Cylinder temp 310.

Temps around the valve train stable, you tell me.

[outnabout]

Can we re-introduce "on time departures" into the training syllabus as well?

When a CPL gets into the real world, it seems to come as a horrible shock that 7am departure means just that. NOT 7am is when pilot wanders into the hanger, idly scratching himself, and begins planning the day, and may or may not be wheels off at 9.30-ish.

[Aussie Bob]

Can we re-introduce "on time departures" into the training syllabus as well?

Big ask! Huge problem that my number 12 boot has been unable to ever fully resolve. Funny, when I am there on time departures happen but when I am absent my charges forget.

I think on time lessons for all students at all schools might help but when someone turns up for a 10:30 lesson and the lesson starts at 12:30 the rot begins to set in.

[Shagpile]

Just sync watches and tell them they are unprofessional when they are 5 seconds early or late to brief. Don't accept either early or late.

And when they read back "report 5 miles" tell them that's the easiest way to spot an amateur and they will never do it again.

Another method to get them to do something they keep stuffing is ask them "Alright can you do [blah]". When they answer yes and don't do it they will kick themselves. Very effective.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I know an instructor at a 'remote' country airport, who used to fly his students into 'fair weather Cu' on a good day at a 'safe' alt. to show them what may / could / probably will / happen should they try this later 'in the real world'.....

A bit different from just putting a hood on.

Cheers:ok:

[Centaurus]

just to be consistent? Funnily enough I have never heard that used
Sorry to burst your bubble their Centaurus, but our flying school and another that I know of actually get their students to Call '200ft', Flaps Up, Gear Up and locked, check track.!



Jesus wept!! And I know you aren't kidding either. Time to get out of this game..:ugh:

[NZFlyingKiwi]

To be fair, the PA-38 Information Manual does not indicate you should check that the park brake is off, that there is sufficient fuel for a go-round/touch and go, or that any of the lights are on as part of its approach and landing checks, all of which I think are quite sensible items to check.

I think with the undercarriage check you can argue both ways however I have heard far, far more cases of the gear being forgotten because the check was skipped than because of a mindset that "we always check it and it's always fixed", in fact I don't recall any instances of the second, which is not to say it hasn't happened - I've been doing this for a heck of a lot less time than most of you on here! I've also never heard of someone having an accident because they forgot to raise the undercarriage in a retractable aeroplane after takeoff because they were used to a fixed gear aeroplane where this check was not taught. Again not to say it's never happened of course.

[Creampuff]

1/. Students were not taught to lean the mixture until after they passed their PPL;

2/. No diversions were ever "sprung" on the student but notified and planned in advance (including diversions on flight tests)

3/. no allowance made for climb fuel in the fuel plan

4/. no flight plans or SARTIMES were ever lodged "because there was always someone at the school to hold company SAR".I was going to say that the aviation world in Australia has gone mad …

I now despair that it’s just getting more and more mediocre. :ugh:

[The Green Goblin]

All I have to say is there are some pretty strange ideas out there!

[LeadSled]

I know an instructor at a 'remote' country airport, who used to fly his students into 'fair weather Cu' on a good day at a 'safe' alt. to show them what may / could / probably will / happen should they try this later 'in the real world'.....Griffo,
That wouldn't be that remote country town with a local airport identified as YSBK, would it?

what may / could / probably willWhat you mean is "will happen". I always used to start a clock, the average time to loss of control was around 30s, the best a little over 60s, always the "graduation test" after the initial 3h IF in those days of the Restricted PPL, no student ever failed to spiral out.

I am pleased ( having been accused of all sorts of illegality -- which was true, but now the statute of limitations is my friend) to make the claim that none of my students have even had an accident IFR when unqualified to fly IFR.

One of the results of the PIFR has been a reduction such accidents, I think it is, in part, more pilots are qualified, and equally importantly, more pilots have discovered, in controlled conditions, that all the warnings about inadvertent IFR, when not trained AND CURRENT, are true.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I would point out that I was one of of the few instructors on the field, who actually had an instrument rating, so it wasn't quite the blind leading the blind.

[Tankengine]

Lets not even mention the BS way of teaching forced landings only down to 500' AGL!:hmm:
This has been going on over 30 years at some ( most?) schools, it is the last 500' that is the killer.:ugh: The upper stuff really just teaches checks and an "idea" about where to crash.;)

[LeadSled]

Lets not even mention the BS way of teaching forced landings only down to 500' AGL!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

Tankengine,

Perhaps we should. Fundamentally I agree with you, but there is a little matter of CASA, and the way "the rules" are now enforced.

For example, it was recently put to me, by an FOI, that an instructor (or any pilot) could not fly below 500', except for takeoff and landing, unless they had a low level rating, therefor they could not take forced landing instruction below 500' --- if you had an approved low level area. Or, of course, stress of weather.

Sadly, given our complex, convoluted and Oh! So inflexible rule book, the FOI is right, mostly the instructor is limited to a minimum of 500'.

Sadly,"compliance" takes precedence over the adequate teaching needed to produce a competent pilot.

Tootle pip!!

PS: If you have the unfortunate experience of instructors/CFIs with ideas/requirements/mandatory procedures that are outside the requirements of/contrary to the POH/AFM (in many aircraft the doc. called the POH is the AFM), just chant the magic incantation: "CAR 138, 50 penalty points, strict liability, for strict liability see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code"

[currawong]

That is as sad as making people do ten hours plus to solo.

[Volumex]

Lets not even mention the BS way of teaching forced landings only down to 500' AGL!

After my PPL I was getting a checkout in a Decathlon and the instructor simulated an engine failure. I picked the field, flew the circuit etc. When I got to 500' he told me to keep going. I crapped myself all the way down. I managed to just clear the fence and was in the process of flaring when the instructor told me to go around.

It scared the bejebus out of me. It would be been a successful forced landing, but like as said above - the last 500' are where it gets interesting. I'd highly recommend that everyone does it.

I was speaking to the instructor later, and it was his standard forced landing area. He knows the farmer that owns the paddock (the farmer used it as his own strip but rarely used it so it didn't look like a runway.) The instructor sets the plane up adjacent to the strip at a reasonable altitude so that it is the obvious choice. Then he sits quietly in the back and watches the bunny up the front sweat.

[Oktas8]

Now about fixing the problems...

I gather, from reading this thread, that many of you have or had instructor ratings. For those not currently instructing, why don't you do something about it, and start instructing again?

If you're a current instructor on here letting off steam, fine. But everyone else, it is easy to criticize the system when you're outside it, blind to its difficulties and restrictions. Much better to re-enter the system, bringing in necessary experience.

Cheers,
Oktas "complaining is easy" 8.

PS - I had eleven years in instructing (by choice) and won't be going back just yet. But you'll note I haven't criticized the system or specific participants. Too easy, but too unhelpful.

[Tankengine]

Volumex, you have a good instructor!:ok:

Leadsled, I well understand the CASA problems, it is a shame.:mad:
At least the odd instructor finds ways around it.:E

Ask your FOI how they train precautionary search and landings?:rolleyes:

I would suggest all students do a bit of gliding. If they do not want to do it as a sport at least fly in a two seat motor glider and get some decent forced landing training, right down to landing in suitable fields!:ok:

Perhaps a few full spins too!;)

[Centaurus]

That is as sad as making people do ten hours plus to solo.

Or five hours for an aerobatic rating in a C150 or Citabria! Just think how many barrel rolls, stall turns, loops, rolls of the top and slow rolls you can do in five hours. A rip off as usual.

[RatsoreA]

That is as sad as making people do ten hours plus to solo.
Or five hours for an aerobatic rating in a C150 or Citabria! Just think how many barrel rolls, stall turns, loops, rolls of the top and slow rolls you can do in five hours. A rip off as usual.

What is the average time from TIF to first solo these days? From the point of view of those here...?

[Aussie Bob]

Anywhere from 8 to 65 in my recent experience ... and two ends of the spectrum as personally seen in the last two years.

[TOUCH-AND-GO]

What is the average time from TIF to first solo these days? From the point of view of those here...?

RastoreA a typical student these days from a TIF to first solo, that's if she/he wants to continue, seems to be around 15-25 hours. It took me 20 hours if I recall correctly!
In saying so I've witnessed on a few occasions where I have seen a student do 35 hours before doing his first circuit solo and got his GFPT at 70 hours. :}

T&G.

[dubbleyew eight]

What is the average time from TIF to first solo these days? From the point of view of those here...?
rats the problem with the question is that it doesnt account for age.

back in the 70's the usual student was a young guy without a girlfriend or commitments. at the peak of their neurological development and taking 12 to 18 hours to solo.

now days with much older guys in the abinitio mix they must take much longer to tune the neurology and get the fine motor skills for competent flying.
methinks.
ymmv.

[RatsoreA]

35 hours? 65 hours? Jesus wept!!

A number of ideas and theories could be drawn from (this albeit small) sample -

Back in the day (pre war even) pilots seemed to solo quite quickly. I recall in Centaurus' book, he mentioned banging it out after 3-4 hours in a moth (please correct me if I'm wrong).

But now, that seems much higher, higher even from my peer group and my personal experience from the early 90's.

Is it defective instruction? Are instructors not teaching properly and therefore the student is taking longer to learn?

Are newer pilots dullards, and need 3 hours of intense instruction to put their pants on in the morning (would explain the 7am departure problem!)?

Are schools that short of cash, they need to keep milking their student cash cows for as long as possible?

Has over regulation and OH&S got everyone so paralysed with fear of somebody f@&king something up that every single manoeuvre and nuance of aircraft operation has to be over done to the extreme?

Is it some other factor I'm missing? A combination of factors?

Having not picked up a day VFR syllabus in *a fair while*, I assume the lesson order is something similar to -

TIF
EOC
Turns
S&L
Stalls
Circuits circuits circuits
Solo

Again, please feel free to correct anything I have wrong?

Not accusing anyone of anything, or stereotyping certain groups (Gen Y/baby boomers/etc) into certain pigeon holes, I'm just interested to hear what certain instructors think?

[Oktas8]

EoC, S&L, C&D, Turning, Stalling 1&2, Circuits (normal mainly, with some flapless & glide). The idea is that every phase of flight in a circuit has been taught thoroughly before the circuit is entered so the busy and distracting circuit phase consists entirely of putting existing skills to work, not teaching new skills. (Stalling excepted!)

With a weak instructor, either due to inexperience, poor training or other reasons, this may be rushed through. In this event many students will require extra practice pre-PPL.

A skilled and experienced instructor can give solid useful instruction for 10 hours before first solo, or more if the student needs revision - which most do.

Edit: in the good old days the syllabus was shorter and time to solo was less. There was perhaps less emphasis on programmed instruction, teaching from the known to the unknown in manageable steps etc, and more emphasis on "do what I do, when I do it" in aircraft and airspace that were less complex. But I could be completely wrong - I wasn't there!

[Tankengine]

When I was abinitio trained in 1980 the group of us, all 16-18 years old and already well theory trained, and flying all week went solo From 7-10 hours. :ok:
Some maybe longer.
Our instructor were all current Airline pilots and mine ex WW2 RAAF as well!:ok:
As an instructor I trained many older, less studious Pilots who were part time and they took longer. I would have thought 10-15 hours would be typical if done with no gaps.:hmm:

[Arm out the window]

For those not currently instructing, why don't you do something about it, and start instructing again?


About to do just that, although on the wokka side. There must be a reasonable number of us out there in a position to think about maybe coming back and putting our money where our mouth is re standards, surely?

[drpixie]

Sadly,"compliance" takes precedence over the adequate teaching needed to produce a competent pilot.

LeadSled - absolutely correct, but (as mentioned) there are always ways around these restrictions.


You can fly down to the ground when take-off or landing, with permission of the owner - and nothing says you can't go-around. So find a friendly local, supply them with ale/lager/xxxx, and use their back paddock as a PFL area. (Of course, you checked for wires beforehand.)

You can use any normal airfield. I often do PFLs over quiet country airfields - and it's generally amusing.


Me: Oh look, there's an airfield. .... What would you do if we had an engine failure now?

Student: (Carefully recalling wording of the briefing.) I would select a field landing into the wind.

Me: Which field?

Student: (Looks around carefully and picks distant paddock.) That one.

Me: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT AIRFIELD?

Student: (Invariable ashamed smile.)

Me: (Closing throttle and sitting back.) Oh dear, we've just had an engine failure.

Well, something has to keep small-minded instructors amused. And students seem quite reliable in following my script. :rolleyes:

[poteroo]

In 1963, I trained at Archerfield. It was really so much easier then because it was allover grass, and the circuit just changed to suit - always into wind landing. 6-12 hrs to solo in an Auster, or a new fangled C150 was about usual. And, everyone was <25 yo, and yes, the instructors were mostly ex RAF,RAAF or current airline. The fun began on navex's because we then had to land on a runway - and if anything, I'd say we were all less skilled in crosswind ops than my current students on completion of training.
happy days,

[mcgrath50]

For those not currently instructing, why don't you do something about it, and start instructing again?

For the average guy in the airlines how feasible is it it do a bit of instructing on the side? I've always wondered if it's possible to fit in around the work and worth it for the school/club as I assume it would be hard to maintain regular time with students if you can't keep a pretty fixed roster with the airline.

[Ultralights]

some students i have seen who went solo with very low hours, no idea about airmanship, correct radio procedures, correct aircraft operating procedures, no idea what to do in an emergency, gee, some had no idea what mixture did! sure, they could fly a circuit solo, but thats all they could do. most even bragged about it.. :ugh:

[T28D]

Poteroo, Me too Archerfield June 1963 RACQ Victa 115 VH RQP and RQO happy days

[Horatio Leafblower]

There are many many variables in civilian flight training compared to WWII military flight training and I don't think you can compare the results.

For a start, we aren't training 'em up as cannon fodder. We don't need to pump them out as fast as possible to throw them at the enemy. I have had quite a few (typically young, male) students who would probably be OK going for a lap on their own after 6-8 hours... but why not jam a couple more hours in and be certain?

Second, as many have said above, an 18-20 year old with fire in the belly, a Spitfire in his future and a military boot up his arse is going to be far more motivated and focussed than a 40 year old mother of 2 who is also working as a bank manager AND needs to find the money for a flying lesson AND ballet lessons for the kids etc etc etc.

I reckon most of my students under 50 would be competent to go first solo if I could fly them 2 lessons/day for 7-10 days. The intensity and consistency of effort pays dividends, but there a few who can spare the time (or the blocks of money).

For many of them, having the confidence to go solo is also an issue (having survived our teens and 20's it seems self-preservation kicks in).

18-20 year old males are a very small minority in our operation so our training is very much focussed on the other side of the market. Simultaneously frustrating and rewarding. :ugh: :D :ugh: :D :ugh: :D

[Oktas8]

For the average guy in the airlines how feasible is it it do a bit of instructing on the side?

It is feasible, just barely (letter of permission from chief pilot, etc.) I'd like to exercise my Grade 1 that I got off the back of a TTMRA form, but I'm a completely unknown quantity in this part of the world. Networking is important, and I'm not at a stage of life where I'm willing to be an aeroclub barfly for a few weeks hoping to pick up a bit of work.

Edit: I used to teach pre-selected young guys in their early to mid twenties. Motivation and ability were both there in spades. It is difficult to teach true attitude flying in less than ten hours to solo however. Show me someone who solo'd in less than ten hours, and I will (usually) show you someone who needed just as many hours as anyone else to achieve CPL / MEIR. Hence, a long time to solo can say something about the student, but a short time to solo says more about the instructor / training system, than it does about the student.

[seneca208]

At my flying school, hours to solo varied quite a bit. However as Oktas mentions, most of us sat our CPLs on the minimum requirement. I remember one mature guy that took a little longer than the rest to solo- his biggest problem was taxiing!

[BPA]

Just wondering if there is a demand for former instructors who are currently flying for the airlines and would like to return to instructing. I'm thinking about renewing my Grade 2 and the airline I work for will allow external flying, which would equate to 1-2 days per week.

[NZFlyingKiwi]

some students i have seen who went solo with very low hours, no idea about airmanship, correct radio procedures, correct aircraft operating procedures, no idea what to do in an emergency, gee, some had no idea what mixture did! sure, they could fly a circuit solo, but thats all they could do. most even bragged about it.. :ugh:

This is a good point. As a bit of an experiment recently I actually had a person with no previous flying experience flying "safe" circuits in a 172 (including takeoff and landing with no physical and minimal verbal assistance) after 1.0 hours flight time. Had I then elected to get out and let him go off by himself it's entirely possible he could have repeated this (with my having completed all of the before takeoff checks for him prior to getting out!) however radio work would have been non-existent, any sort of emergency would most probably have been met with sheer panic, awareness of other traffic in the circuit would have been nil, knowledge of what to do in the event of a ballooned/bounced landing would have been nil etc. I think 10-15 hours of dual gives the average student time to not only become competent in handling the aircraft, but also enough situational awareness that if they're downwind and a Learjet joins the circuit behind them, or the 10kt headwind suddenly becomes a 5kt crosswind etc. it won't be all over!

[VH-FTS]

Just wondering if there is a demand for former instructors who are currently flying for the airlines and would like to return to instructing. I'm thinking about renewing my Grade 2 and the airline I work for will allow external flying, which would equate to 1-2 days per week

Unfortunately many instructors would see you as a threat to their ambitions and ideas about how to fly. You'd probably have more experience than the CFI and Grade Ones, and they would view you as a trouble maker when questioning why they do things a certain (weird/incorrect/unrealistic) way.

[BPA]

Thanks for the reply VH-FTS.

It's a shame if that's what they would think, as like what the others have said when learnt to fly most of the CFI's and senior Intructors were airliine pilots who had a passion to want to pass on knowledge, rather than chase hours.

Rather than see those returning to instructing from the airlines, the instructors (and CFI's) should see it a resource and tap into the knowledge that they may have. They could also be used in a mentoring role for both the students and instructors.

[Creampuff]

drpixie has the solution to the 'PFL below 500'' problem. :ok:

I hope s/he's not the only one left with the brains to think outside the triangle. :ugh:

[Horatio Leafblower]

The FOIs and FTEs I have flown with out of Bankstown certainly didn't seem to think DrPixie's method was strange whenever I flew it with them.

The ex-RAAF FOIs, however, went spastic :hmm:

[Creampuff]

So when they 'went spastic', were they able to point to any rule of law or common sense reason for prohibiting practising a forced landing on to a perfectly serviceable landing area?

Or did they expect someone to prove the unprovable: Practise a forced landing into somewhere that's suitable, but don't go below 500' 'cause that's naughty, and if you haven't gone below 500' you haven't proved your competence. :ugh:

[Horatio Leafblower]

Not the first time, not the last time:

"I will have to take this back to my manager" he harrumphed.

No further peeps were heard. It was an ALA. :rolleyes:

[DrT33th]

I learned to fly around 14 yrs ago in Australia, lapsed for far too long and am now back at the throttle re-learning.... And having fun ....And have nothing but praise for instructors...and the "enthusiasts" that they need to deal with...

Back when I started I had 4 different instructors: one ex military, one crop-duster, one airline pilot and a young buck building hours... And all had different styles of instruction, and all taught me different things.

The military guy was all about check lists and altitudes and air speeds. The crop duster was, "instruments are fine to have as a back-up, but just feel what the plane is telling you". The airline pilot was the one who taught me to fly the plane to the ground.... By making me try to fly the centerline of the runway in rough weather configuration at exactly ten feet.... While he was kicking the rudder and holding , and jerking up and down, the throttle.... Scary...but effective! :rolleyes:

( BTW, I originally solo'd at about 14hrs)

[dubbleyew eight]

you know that emergency over the local airstrip scenario.
it is bollocks.
I had one pulled on me once and refused to use the strip as intended.
if the glide approach was stuffed up or the wind was different from what was expected the bushland either end of the strip meant that there was no safe undershoot area and no safe overshoot area.
you had to nail the entire approach perfectly or you were toast.
I elected for a big farmers flat paddock.

while we were gliding to the paddock I was asked what I was doing.
absolutely nothing was the reply.
wtf you are in an emergency!!!
all decisions made in the first minute of an emergency are usually wrong so I am waiting for the second minute was the reply.
never panic in an emergency even if the instructor wants you to.:p

[pithblot]

I started flying in the late 70s and chose to avoid becomming a flight instructor and any sort of C&T role. Now in the later years of my career, and with a few teaching experiences in areas other than flying, I regret that decision. In recent years I've offen thought I'd enjoy getting involved in flying training for the satisfaction of handing my skills on and helping someone achieve their goals. I don't see that happening until after I retire from my present gig, and by then it might be too late.

However, I am getting vicarious instructional highs through this thread - so thank you, one-and-all, for your input here.

Pithblot

[Oktas8]

you know that emergency over the local airstrip scenario.
it is bollocks.

Bit harsh W8. Yes it's bollocks from 3000' for the reasons you mention.

But it's an excellent training tool from low key to the ground, as long as the instructor points out that a runway-shaped field is usually not the best choice for a FLWOP.*

Horses for courses, and being adaptable to meet the student's training needs, etc etc.

* If the runway is long, it becomes a good FLWOP site again. Make one's aim point halfway along a long runway, and the risks of wind change, overshoot, undershoot etc are well managed.

[djpil]

That is as sad as making people do ten hours plus to solo.
Or five hours for an aerobatic rating in a C150 or Citabria! Just think how many barrel rolls, stall turns, loops, rolls of the top and slow rolls you can do in five hours. A rip off as usual.With upright spins and recoveries from unusual attitudes (failed aerobatic manoeuvres) it consistently takes 7 lessons for spin and aerobatic endorsements. Including revision to ensure that key things stick (although I wonder if some really know about PARE some months later). Busy airport with transit to the aerobatic area will take 7 hours. Some lucky people may be somewhere such that it can be done in 5 hours.

At a small airfield some instructors I know have recently been sending younger people solo in about 5-6 hours in an aircraft type with characteristics similar to the old Piper Colt.

[kookaburra]

djpil, sorry don't agree.
Centaurus is spot on.

Average to solo around 10 hrs by my guess. 7 if doing well.
Average for basic aeros 3hrs or so when done with tail wheel endorsement.
Average for tail wheel endorsement 3 hrs when done with aeros. Hardest thing was finding the right day for crosswinds.
As posted in another thread, I always recommended both to be done together as up to an hour of aeros is a waste of time for a student. Go do 15-20 min tops, come back to the circuit for the rest or their head is left spinning, pardon the pun. :)

[Checkboard]

Average for basic aeros 3hrs or so when done with tail wheel endorsement.
Average for tail wheel endorsement 3 hrs when done with aeros. Hardest thing was finding the right day for crosswinds.
I assume by that, you mean "6 hours for a aerobatic rating on your first tailwheel aircraft, and signed off for both at the end of it"?

It depends on what you mean by "basic" aerobatics, I guess. A C150 Aerobat isn't permitted stall turns or inverted flying (as in slow rolls) in the flight manual - only loops, aileron rolls, spins and a couple of other bits. I could teach that in 3 hours, perhaps.

In a Decathelon which can do a bit more, it would definitely by a minimum of 5 hours to cover most people expectations - "sportsman" standard (stall turns, combination loops/rolls, slow rolls etc etc).

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

A C150 Aerobat isn't permitted stall turns or inverted flying (as in slow rolls) in the flight manual

It isn't? :confused:

Dr :8

[Aussie Bob]

Average for basic aeros 3hrs or so when done with tail wheel endorsement.
Average for tail wheel endorsement 3 hrs when done with aeros. Hardest thing was finding the right day for crosswinds.

Not quite sure Kookaburra, what are you saying here. Do you mean you can get both a tailwheel endorsement and an aero endorsement within three hours? Or do you mean three hours for each?

[outnabout]

Dubbleyew Eight:

You say: You have to nail the whole thing perfectly or you are toast (referring to using a runway with bush at either end).

Isn't that the point, regardless of whether it's a runway or a paddock?

Select a paddock, aim for that, miss seeing a washout, a pile of rocks half-hidden in grass, or an ancient single strand telephone wire, and you're still toast?

[Arnold E]

I would like to see more training done when the wind is howling, rain is bucketing down and the scud is barely above MSA. That approach teaches students to know how far they can go, and a bit of respect for the elements.
I have to agree with this one, this was not included in my early training, (which by the way was conducted at a school run by ex Raffie pilot instructor), and it was quite a few years before I became confident flying in less than almost perfect weather.

[dubbleyew eight]

when I put IS in red I had just come on to prune again and the highlight was to show what I had edited. looking at it now it does carry some emphasis that wasnt intended.

the strip selected was a short CALM strip in the hills of Perth. it was a small strip and had significant bushland either end. since then we have found that CALM or someone had run a 5 wire fence across the centre to stop people using the strip. there werent many droppers in the fence and it was totally invisible.
as it turned out it was a lifesaving choice though we didnt know it at the time because we were going to land.

subsequently on a forced practise I got caught applying flap a little early. in a full on glide early flap makes you into a plumbers toolbag. you never apply flap until you are over the nearside fence and are certain of making the strip. a lesson I was never taught. ....but taught myself.

as in any non bitumen landing if you have walked the area in question and are absolutely sure there are no rabbit holes, termite heaps, hidden rocks, near invisible fences and such then by all means use the strip. just looking down and thinking ah there is a strip we'll use that one. nah too risky.

[PLovett]

The ex-RAAF FOIs, however, went spastic

Tell me. Were these the same ones that put a perfectly good 707 in the water off East Sale by continuing to demand something that was known in the service as "....practicing bleeding"? :=

[kookaburra]

Check board & Aussiebob,

Yes, about 3 hrs each, 6 or so total. (Was clear to me ! :) )

Yes, Usual basics, spins, stall turns, loops, barrel rolls, aileron rolls, inverted flight

[The Green Goblin]

Inverted flight in an aerobatic is prohibited due to gravity feeding from the tanks. Sometimes in a slow barrell roll she'd splutter.

Stall turns are fair game.

Probably because of the word 'stall' the modern crop of instructors **** themselves.

[Arm out the window]

PLovett,

I lost friends in that crash and, while I broadly agree with your sentiment regarding bleeding practice, I'm not sure what you're getting at re the 707 and how it links up with what ex-RAAF FOIs would or wouldn't do when confronted with a PFL into an airstrip.

[Ultralights]

its a Hammerhead turn dammit! next you will calling your aircraft and airplane! :}

[PLovett]

I'm not sure what you're getting at re the 707 and how it links up with what ex-RAAF FOIs would or wouldn't do when confronted with a PFL into an airstrip

I was being a bit more general in my comment than referring to the specific of a PFL.

[Ejector]

But they can learn all this when they do their cadet-ship can't they ?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Inverted flight in an aerobatic is prohibited due to gravity feeding from the tanks.

Is inverted flight specifically prohibited in the Aerobat's POH, or will it just not do it? Not the same thing IMHO.

Didn't stop us from trying "inverted gliding"! :E

Dr :8

[The Green Goblin]

From memory its in the limitations section of the POH.

[dartman2]

PLovett,

Whilst I do not disagree with your feelings about certain elements of CASA, the circumstances leading up to the loss of that 707 are complex. I knew all five of those Gents well. You really have no idea about the comparisons that you are making.

[ravan]

FTDK, Section 2 of the Aerobat POH actually does use the words "Inverted flight prohibited" and does not approve "Whip Stalls", aka Stall Turns or Hammerheads.

Having said that, we used to do a pseudo stall turn by taking the aircraft to the vertical and as the speed fell to 40 KIAS, applying full rudder in the desired direction and keeping the wings in the correct plane with judicious use of aileron. Lots of fun and the aircraft never actually "whip stalled".

[dubbleyew eight]

a whip stall is done by applying full power, accelerating straight and level, then pulling the nose hard up and chopping the power.
the resulting stall is quite violent.
the aircraft pitches forward until it is almost nose vertically down and recovers in a screaming dive.
it was used just once to show me a secondary stall at high speed and prove beyond all doubt that a wing stalls at an angle and not a speed.

so a whip stall is not a stall turn or a hammerhead. it is done straight forward, straight up and most certainly straight down.

dont ever do it, especially in an old aircraft. it would be a wonderful way to create a cloud of tinsel around you.

[Ultralights]

almost sounds like a snap roll

y4DZcLG2gf8

cant say i have ever seen a "whip stall" while doing a hammerhead. quite a few tail slides, with forward or backward flip if you let the speed decay to far before kicking over the rudder, but how do you stall with 0G as you begin falling backward? i am assuming this is what might be considered by some as a"whip stall'?

[djpil]

The "whip stalls" prohibited in the Aerobat are tailslides.
Per its certification basis, all aerobatics are approved except for those prohibited. Stall turns or hammerhead turns are not listed in the AFM with a recommended entry speed but are not prohibited therefore permitted.
Nil oil pressure inverted as well so the limitation on inverted flying.
Ex-Cessna test pilot Bill Kershner has an excellent book on aerobatting the Cessnas.

[porterpat]

Something a little different.
Does anyone know the technical reason casa in Perth are telling at least one charter co. that in future the emergency procedures for b200 endorsements
must be completed in a sim (Ansett in Melb) and completed in an a/c.
The theory at least being that a sim is available.
What about b1900 or conquests. I can't find the relevant cao.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

New version of CAO 40.1.0 issued earlier this year?

2A.2 This subsection applies in relation to conversion training for any of the following:
(a) a multi-engine aeroplane with a passenger seating capacity of not less than 10, and not more than 19, seats;
(b) an aeroplane with a passenger seating capacity of not less than 20 seats;
(c) an aeroplane with a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) exceeding 8 618 kg.

[djpil]

kookaburra: djpil, sorry don't agree.
....
Average to solo around 10 hrs by my guess. 7 if doing well.
I agree with your average but you don't agree with my statement?At a small airfield some instructors I know have recently been sending younger people solo in about 5-6 hours in an aircraft type with characteristics similar to the old Piper Colt.I can give the source of that data, it is not opinion. More data: many taking 20 hrs to solo a Jabiru.

kookaburra:djpil, sorry don't agree.
Centaurus is spot on.
.......
Average for basic aeros 3hrs or so when done with tail wheel endorsement.
I'd like to see the syllabus to cover upright spins and the aerobatic manoeuvres per CAO 40.0 within 3 hours? Recovery from failed figures/unusual attitudes would be good too.

[VH-FTS]

Porterpat,

MakeItHappenCaptain's post and reference is on to why most of the training/checking needs to be done in the sim. The asymmetric training crash up in Darwin a few years ago was the final straw. No more check captain delegations or approvals are given to conduct asymmetric training in 'larger' aeroplanes anymore - all needs to be done in the sim.

The problem is the B200 sim is restricted when it comes to visuals i.e. can't do circuits or circling approaches because you can't see out the side window. Therefore, these visual components need to be done in the aeroplane, but the majority of checks (and all emergencies) are done in the sim. Therefore a renewal is usually spread over two days.

[Mach E Avelli]

With King Airs and Conquests replacing Chieftains and 402s, soon these could be the entry level IFR twins for inexperienced pilots. So requiring B200 simulator will be a Good Thing.
However, if Conquests and other similar types that are not supported locally by a simulator are exempt, what risk analysis has CASA really done? A nine seat King Air is exempt (e.g. C90 or B100), but not a ten seater. They all handle pretty much the same, so has this rule been made because they have proved by flight test that the B200 exhibits more dangerous characteristics than the others (I doubt it) or is it the usual application of arbitrary numbers?

[A37575]

Tell me. Were these the same ones that put a perfectly good 707 in the water off East Sale by continuing to demand something that was known in the service as "....practicing bleeding"?

PLovett is online now Report Post


Yes - that wasn't a good look.

I had never heard of "practicing bleeding" until I left the RAAF. I think the term was used to describe DCA Examiners of Airmen and civilian flying instructors (as well as former military) who had the habit of cutting the mixture control after take off to "simulate" an engine failure in a twin.

Of course it was a real engine failure caused by cutting off the fuel. A dangerous practice that caused several fatalities over the years with the Duchess crash at Camden being one of the most tragic when the aircraft caught fire after hitting the ground.

[Checkboard]

Rubbish. I pulled the mixture every time - it's safer.

[Sunfish]

Did someone pull the mixture on the B707?

[kabukiman]

my thoughts being a student at present (CPL)

I was taught leaning pre PPL but it was never emphasised until close to my PPL. Of course I lean without second thought now but I believe it's just something to complicate a flight further for a person just learning.

Same goes with climb fuel. I was taught it, but never used it until now; it made no difference in training flights and my first navs. As others have said at altitudes you use on such flights and in little warriors or 172s etc it's just something to complicate things further for a student.

The pre-planned diversion thing sounds a bit scary. I was happy to often have them sprung on me, that's the whole point. What will happen to those students when they have to make one and plan it in the cockpit?

I agree with whoever said lodging flight notifications from early on is a good idea, it certainly helped me get the hang of them, they're fiddly things. You're teaching the student to operate an aircraft where they will be responsible for the entire flight and occupants etc, they won't have someone back at base all the time to hold their hands and ring up if they don't come back. Lodging a SARTIME I thought was something everyone was taught.

Also, harking back to when I learned to fly, I would like to see more training done when the wind is howling, rain is bucketing down and the scud is barely above MSA. That approach teaches students to know how far they can go, and a bit of respect for the elements.
Today's flying schools are breeding a bunch of pussies.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's one thing to read about certain conditions, it's another to be in it yourself. Having flown early on in my training (pre PPL) in special VFR conditions, lost all vis, having doors come open in flight and rain coming in everywhere, trying to pick the runway through the muck, etc it opens your eyes the way no textbook can.

[Ultralights]

The pre-planned diversion thing sounds a bit scary. I was happy to often have them sprung on me, that's the whole point. What will happen to those students when they have to make one and plan it in the cockpit?

if your diligent enough in planning, especially when NFVR and IFR then almost every diversion is pre planned in a way.

[Horatio Leafblower]

if your diligent enough in planning, especially when NFVR and IFR then almost every diversion is pre planned in a way.

Hey you must have that new app from crystalball.com

Is it available on android yet or only iOS? :suspect:

[VH-FTS]

Horatio,

Ultralights is correct to an extent. It's called situation awareness you smart arse.

You don't just fly up to the edge of a thunderstorm of low cloud bank and go "oh bugger, I need to divert now".

I'm not advocating telling students where a diversion will be during an upcoming flight, however, diversion training doesn't really teach much decision making anyway. How often does an instructor just say "ok, now take me to X"? A better technique could be explaining a simulated weather event ahead and get them to make a decision. If the decision is not really suitable some further prompting could be given.

[LeadSled]

-----the circumstances leading up to the loss of that 707 are complex
Dartman2,
The actual cause of the accident, a violent loss control, was anything but complex, and believe me, the Vmca3 and Vmca2 figures for the B707-320C, and the asymmetric performance of said aeroplane type are engraved on my brain.

Given the crew actions in flight, the outcome was entirely predictable.

I have no idea what preceded the action taken, or why it was done, but I do recall some other similar incidents involving Hers., but where recovery was possible.

Sadly, in GA, we continue to add to a long history of usually fatal accidents in light twin, because instructors do not understand the certified and limit performance of the aircraft they are flying --- then add hubris and overconfidence and we read the results in the newspapers and later, a pc version from ATSB.

"Whip Stalls", aka Stall Turns or Hammerheads.ravan,
Look into the definitions, a "whip stall" is not a "stall turn" or "hammerhead turn" (name of choice) , the latter are very gentle maneuvers.

Tootle pip!!

[ravan]

Thanks for the reminder Leadsled.
Earlier posters had pointed that out to me and some research has reinforced their correction.
I didn't feel the need to tell everyone but, since you mention it, I will say that I was mistaken but now I know better. :uhoh:

[kookaburra]

Djpil,

When I said I didn't agree, it was with reference to the time taken to sign off on basic aeros.
Incase I wasn't clear. This is when done with the tail wheel endorsement.
6 hrs total. Effectively 3 hrs on aeros, 3 for the tail wheel side.
Aeros only full lessons become counter productive and just add $ at basic level.

And I certainly did ensure the full syllabus was covered and then some thanks.

I never signed off on anyone I wouldn't put my own family with.

[A37575]

Re unusual attitudes (aerobatics). Unusual attitude recovery training in Level D flight simulators is rarely practiced in simulator cyclic training for airline pilots. Occasionally it may take place on endorsement training. If so, it may be only once every three years and lasts five minutes at the most.

The usual excuse for not practicing unusual attitude training in jet transport/turbo-prop simulators (other than within the benign officially defined figures of 45 degrees angle of bank, pitch attitude 10 degrees nose down, 25 degrees nose up and within above parameters but flying at airspeeds inappropriate for the conditions), is simulator fidelity restrictions.

Keeping in mind that nearly all jet transport/turbo-prop accidents involving unusual attitudes have been in IMC or night where the crew proved incompetent at recovery on instruments.

There is good value however, in aerobatic training in a suitable light aircraft which after all is nothing more than recovery from unusual attitudes. The RAAF taught this in their elementary, basic and advanced flying schools in years past.

A one hour exposure to aerobatic training goes a long way to gaining confidence in unusual attitude recovery techniques and applies just as much to a jet/turbo-prop type as a Citabria.

That said, you don't have to go to the unnecessary expense of five hours dual in a Citabria. You are not qualifying for a tail wheel endorsement or an aerobatic endorsement. You merely want basic dual instruction aerobatic flying to include barrel rolls ie recovery from fully inverted - stall turns ie recovery from very nose high attitude and maybe a roll off the top (recovery from inverted slow flight).

So, if your airline simulator instructor doesn't have the time of five minutes (expense) or the inclination, to demonstrate to you the correct way of recovering from an unusual attitude (possibly because he is not confident of success himself:E ), then hire an aerobatic qualified instructor to teach you the basics in a suitable trainer. That is much better than just reading the theory in manuals.

Better still, try to practice the aeros under the hood and really improve your instrument scan. It will be money worth spent. But don't get talked into a tail-wheel endorsement or an aerobatic endorsement; unless of course you have the spare cash.

[LeadSled]

. Unusual attitude recovery training in Level D flight simulators is rarely practiced in simulator cyclic training for airline pilots. Occasionally it may take place on endorsement training. If so, it may be only once every three years and lasts five minutes at the most.

A37575,
In my experience, that largely depends on the airline, regulators are not much help, particularly CASA. Certainly, several airlines I worked for over the years had recovery from unusual attitudes every second cyclic training session.

Having said that, no simulator Level D is particularly realistic, stemming, as an oversimplification, from two areas.

(1) The manufacturer's data packages simply do not adequately cover the possible dynamic, what is there for attitudes beyond the certified flight envelope are very rough approximations, if anything is offered at all. One particular manufacturer is now considering withdrawing all but certified data, due potential legal liability.

(2) The physical limits of the simulator, which is unable to simulate the extreme loads involved. A modern simulator is a great device, but? I have seen many simulator "recoveries" that would have torn the wings off a real aeroplane.

As some of you will know, there is a lot of discussion on the subject right now, but no airline wants to contract people who do have suitable aircraft, for realistic upset recovery recurrent training, it's all about money.

Kosher airline cadet pilot training courses all include aerobatics, as well as in-air "upset recovery" in actual aeroplanes, but the cheapskate airlines cadet courses do not.

Sadly, despite how many "command hours" of "experience" they might have from GA, it is possible for an ex-GA recruit to an airline to never have done a full regime of stalls and recovery, or spin and recovery in training, let alone in recurrent training, much less aerobatics, never having gone beyond "approaches to the stall". This is not a good preparation for a for a "dark and stormy night".

Better still, try to practice the aeros under the hood and really improve your instrument scan


Couldn't agree more, although unaware at the time of the importance, I actually did my PPL at a school where that was part of the "extended" PPL course. Extended meant that you signed up for 10 hours instruments, on top of the basic PPL course, which included full spins and recovery (pre-solo) and basic aerobatics. Helpfully, the school allowed as much time as you wanted to spend in a D4 Link, and only charged for the instructor, one UK pound per hour (it was quite a while ago).


Tootle pip!!

[sheppey]

Having said that, no simulator Level D is particularly realistic, stemming, as an oversimplification, from two areas.

(1) The manufacturer's data packages simply do not adequately cover the possible dynamic, what is there for attitudes beyond the certified flight envelope are very rough approximations, if anything is offered at all. One particular manufacturer is now considering withdrawing all but certified data, due potential legal liability.


Point taken re fidelity. It should be remembered that nearly all fatal accidents caused by poor handling in an unusual attitude, happened in IMC or at night. In other words the crews displayed poor basic instrument flying skills and paid the ultimate penalty along with their passengers.

While it is agreed that G forces cannot be simulated in current Level D simulators, flight instrument indications of an unusual attitude are still valid.

Therefore the basics of unusual attitude recovery on instruments should be taught. For example un-load and using full control wheel roll in the shortest direction to the sky-pointer if inverted. Or roll to the nearest horizon if extremely nose high, to drop the nose.

Perceived legal issues aside, even if a future simulator did have full fidelity with G forces, the basics of recovery on instruments are still the same and that is why unusual attitude recovery practice in a simulator on instruments is needed for a pilot to be deemed proficient. The alternative is to learn from a book at leisure. That's as useless as learning to swim from a book.

[FAR CU]

Many an interesting post here from a while back. Got to thinking about all the ALAs across the wide brown land. Got to thinking of the arrogant FOI who took a CPL applicant out into the boondooks and had him forceland into a remote ALA. The nice gentleman informed the younger bloke of a fail for not mentioning the fact you must contact the owner of the ALA before you use it. (I know - it defies all logic and sense.) Anyway FOI gets out wanders over to a tree for a slash and a smoke. Meanwhile, very pissed off other party starts up, takes off, leaving a cross man to find his own way home.

[zanthrus]

FAR CU that was an awesome story. I would have loved to see the look on that FOI's face when his flight departed without him! :ok:

[B2N2]

The Rotax is a far better engine than any lycoming or Continental

Dear Lord the horror.....
It’s a snowmobile engine and should have stayed that way.

[parishiltons]

Had a student change flying schools recently and while reviewing their understanding of the stuff they needed to understand, they revealed a few odd practices from their old school.

A selection:

1/. Students were not taught to lean the mixture until after they passed their PPL;

2/. No diversions were ever "sprung" on the student but notified and planned in advance (including diversions on flight tests)

3/. no allowance made for climb fuel in the fuel plan

4/. no flight plans or SARTIMES were ever lodged "because there was always someone at the school to hold company SAR".

These gems have all been verified to me by a Grade 1 instructor from that school.

The schools instructor body is strongly populated by the schools graduates and each of these items, in my view, represent a major failing on the CFI's part to adequately train their charges for the big bad world beyond.

Are these practices justifiable? Is it really so hard to teach someone to fly a C172 that leaning at PPL level is just a bit too much of a stretch? :uhoh:

If I had a PPL candidate who failed to lean the mixture (at all, let alone correctly) on their flight test it would be a pretty short test. :ugh:


4. Lodge a flight plan with whom? Certainly Airservices does nothing with it unless it is SAR or similar. And SARTIMES are just an embuggerance. Bring on the NZ system where you have to provide your credit card number with the SARTIME to pay for it. Flight training organisations should be holding their own flight notes.

Really, this all reeks of crusty old fashioned thinking that unfortunately remains common in the GA part of the industry.

[parishiltons]

OK

Some interesting answers and many of them very accurate and true within limits.

Just to add some more context to the discussion:

- the student holds a CPL

- The student is starting a NVFR

- The student has already done 15-20 hours night training at this other school

- in my opinion, 15 minutes of circling to get up to LSALT (at 3 points) is enough fuel to add it into the flight plan.

How about this one:

- Studes on a solo Nav (PPL and CPL) weren't allowed to actually land at any intermediate waypoint but were instructed to only overfly.

I have heard of Ultralight schools only allowing "accompanied solo" but I had never heard of a GA school doing this.

- Leaning the mixture on a cross-country flight is normal and is a normal part of engine management. It can make 20-30% difference to the fuel flow or more, not the 1-2 litres some people (above) have suggested.

- The climb fuel thing: Yeah block fuel for Day VFR, fair enough. But not for Night VFR.

- Sartimes and flight plans: What does the ATOM say about PPL flight test conduct? CPL flight test conduct?

...If you are turning a student out as a PPL (let alone a CPL) and they haven't got the skills to lodge a VFR flight notification... :ugh:

The Green Goblin:



All of that is true to some extent but if you are Night VFR and you don't count the 16 minutes of climb fuel AND you don't lean the mixture enroute, you will probably find yourself walking home (or more likely, never walking again).

KISS principle is wonderful but it shouldn't come at the expense of competent operation of the aircraft. :*

Do planes use more fuel at night? Well, you learn something every day.

[parishiltons]

Sorry to burst your bubble their Centaurus, but our flying school and another that I know of actually get their students to Call '200ft', Flaps Up, Gear Up and locked, check track.! :}

T&G :ok:

Why? What is so special about 200 feet and what does it have to do with anything? Positive climb plus not enough runway to land again should be the cue for gear up. Positive climb plus suitable airspeed should be the cue to retract flap. Track should be runway track until 500ft or as directed by ATC unless doing IFR training and the SID states otherwise (e.g. RWY 15 at Cairns)

Again, strange practices in some quarters of the GA world.

[aroa]

Off topic, I know but the comment was made
B2N2 I would have thought that a recent solo global circumnavigation in a SeaRey ( build in Florida) all the way behind..sorry in front of, an 80 hp Rotax would have been a pretty damn good advertisement for the reliability of said internal combustion engine. !!

[Checkboard]

Do planes use more fuel at night? Well, you learn something every day.
Day VFR nav - climb en-route is fine, and not a lot more fuel for a piston than cruise.

Night VFR - flight below the LSALT en route isn't that smart, the safest option is to climb to the LSALT while in the airport area, before launching en-route. That's why the climb fuel mentioned in that post matters.

[parishiltons]

Day VFR nav - climb en-route is fine, and not a lot more fuel for a piston than cruise.

Night VFR - flight below the LSALT en route isn't that smart, the safest option is to climb to the LSALT while in the airport area, before launching en-route. That's why the climb fuel mentioned in that post matters.

Why? At night, just use the 10 and 25 NM MSAs as published in AIP to step up to cruise. It's very inefficient to immediately climb to the en route LSALT while still within the circling area. Cruise flight below the LSALT is not very smart during daytime, either.

[Hamley]

At night, just use the 10 and 25 NM MSAs as published in AIP to step up to cruise.

This is not permissible if VFR at night, only IFR. Have a close look at AIP GEN 3.3 4.10

[parishiltons]

This is not permissible if VFR at night, only IFR. Have a close look at AIP GEN 3.3 4.10

Thanks Hamley. I stand corrected.

[werbil]

This is not permissible if VFR at night, only IFR. Have a close look at AIP GEN 3.3 4.10
You can fly below the NVFR LSALT in accordance with the exception AIP GEN 3.3 4.10 (a) during takeoff and climb in the vicinity of the departure aerodrome;
The wording is very similar to the flight below LSALT requirements for IFR aircraft in AIP GEN 4.4 except when necessary during climb after departure from an aerodrome.
There is no legal requirement to remain within the applicable circling area to climb to the LSALT for either IFR or NVFR - it is the PIC's responsibility to ensure terrain clearance. However, don't forget about ENR 1.1 4.1.2.1 which require VFR flights to be navigated visually whilst below 2,000AGL.