Finger Trouble in the cockpit?

[Centaurus]

Scene1 : Brand new CPL with 150 plus hours doing instructors course. Whiteboard briefing includes statement that for normal straight and level fly four fingers attitude. For slow speed 55 knots cruise fly one finger attitude. For go-around fly four fingers.The CFI maintains that using "fingers" is standard instructor teaching.

Don't get me wrong - I am all for innovative methods of teaching - but goddam "fingers"?

I can just see it now. Student bounces and goes around. Has left hand on pole and places four fingers above the coaming while ignoring the rapidly decaying speed caused by no spare hand to open the throttle or retract the flaps to go-around position.

Spin-crash-ouch. Court of Inquiry gravely puts down cause of accident to finger trouble....

What happened to instructor demonstration technique? Watch how I do this Miss Bloggs. Note the nose attitude with reference to the horizon in S & L, climb, descent, and go-around. Note the artificial horizon attitude compared to outside attitude. None of this childish "fingers" stuff. What on earth are some flying instructors up to nowadays - and what clot is perpetuating such nonsense?

Scene 2. B737 go-around raw data manual (shudder, horror) flying. OK Mr Second Officer - rotate to three hands, two fingers and a thumb (all engines going). One engine inoperative go-around? Rotate to one hand and a thumb only.:rolleyes:

[J-Heller]

I had the fingers routine in training as well - it struck me as a bit odd.

Surely the attitude regarding reference point on the plane (coaming, cowling) with the horizon will vary according to how high the student sits! We don't all come in one size. And also....

Many women have fine, slender fingers.......then you could have a brickie with hands like shovels and huge fingers. That last sentence sounds a bit daft, but you get my drift!

It was the prescribed teaching technique, but I found myself memorising visually what the required attitude would be for each particular circumstance - then backing it up with the instruments, While the instructor chanted Lookout-Attitude-Instruments every 3 seconds into my right earhole!

On the other hand, in the initial stages of 'attitude' flying it must be fairly hard to convey exactly what is required to people. Imagine if they had you fetching out your vernier gauge! In which light, the fingers method appears a bit more commonsense.

My instructor did stress that the fingers routine was in there to give an initial rough idea of attitude flying and had no problems in dispensing with it once the attitudes had been learnt.

I liked your B737 scenario :D

Regards,

JH

[FormationFlyer]

J-Heller is right. You missed the point.

Fingers are used to describe an attitude initially to give the student something to hang their hat on to - they havent seen the attitude before..they have to *learn* it. Learning it means *seeing* it, and also having a rough idea of *where* it is when they need to perform it for themselves. It is merely a teaching aid until they get the visual references ingrained in their heads...i.e. until they have learnt the visual picture.

[essouira]

FF is right - it's part of a process not the whole thing ! I do it like this -
1) Show the picture
2) Say that for me the horizon is about x fingers above the cowling
3) Ask the student how it looks for her/him - how many fingers if you like
4) Explain about different heights and importance of sitting at right level for good forward viz
5) Move the picture to show the difference
6) Put it back
7) Ask her/him how it looks for her/himagain - how many fingers if you like
8) Let the student do all that
9) Tell them to remember that picture as they're going to see an awful lot of it
It seems to work - though, centaurus, you could use centimeters instead of fingers just to make sure that the 737 doesn't crash ................

[FormationFlyer]

Yep Same way I do it. One very very important lesson just described above - if they get this right properly - then S&L becomes easier - and so on so does everything else after this point!

[Prop's ????]

FormationFlyer and essouira, after reading your posts I am so sorry I didn’t have you as my instructors. :eek:

I mean after 12 years of safe GA flying, I could have been using my fingers. :confused:

You can’t expect a student to learn about attitude flying with his fingers. It’s all about demonstration, why can’t instructors get it right. The whole instructor thing is becoming very sad. :(

What happened to good pilot’s becoming great instructors and so on. These days you get your Grade 3 straight after your CPL.
It’s too soon; your students are paying $30000+ for your knowledge and experience. Would you give a fresh out of school doctor $30K to do major surgery on your body, I think not. :D

Most of these new instructors are probably learning to fly as they teach. In my line of work, I get 1000-hour instructors wanting to move on in the charter world. You would expect them to be supper naturals. Well, I will reserve my comments.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Centaurus]

Just had an email from a fellow aviator on the subject of using fingers for elementary flying training. He made the following comments ;
How many fingers for a climbing turn?
Do we wear luminous gloves for night flying?
Do we sit on our hands in cloud?
Maybe someone could design a CASA approved inflatable hand to be mounted on the coaming for these occasions....with a standby manual reversion cardboard hand in case of loss of pressurisation in the inflatable one.

And on another matter of instructor teaching technique. Why is 15 degrees used for climbing turns in the circuit? Why is 30 degrees of bank considered a medium turn and 45 degrees a steep turn? Where did these figures originate?

I ask those questions because dusting off my treasured original of the USAF Manual of Primary Flying dated 1957 I see that in USA a gentle turn is defined as 20 degrees angle of bank. Page 32 says that the medium turn is one of 45 degrees angle of bank and that common usage of the medium turn is in the circuit and gliding turns. I can just see a new instructor having kittens if his student went beyond 30 degrees angle of bank in the circuit.

The USAF Manual goes on to say that steep turns are 60 degrees angle of bank and are used for rapid changes of direction, clearing purposes and maximum performance manoeuvres.

So why has there been a dumbing down of turn bank angles over the years in Australian flying schools when I learned to fly at Bankstown countless years ago we were taught the steeper bank angles as used in the USAF manual?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The more I read about how flying is taught by some of todays instructors the more I can understand the deplorable level of flying skills and lack of general understanding of what the hell is going on,, on the part of a whole lot of pilots today.


The dumbing down seems to be following the expected downward curve.

Dumb instructor teaches new instructor = dumber new instructor.

Then finally the truly dumb ones get into a position where they can instigate new methods into the curriculum = todays pilot pool.

Any attitude is taught and learned by looking at the attitude desired....period...

Once that attitude is learned and recognized that is what it looks like....period.

Cat Driver: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Low-Pass]

Point taken Chuck, but then not everyone flying today is a "Top Gun" either. I'd also be interested to see the accident statistics compared with the 1950's.

Having said that, private flying costs money - the students money. In the services, a student can be chopped as it's the goverment paying for it, but not so in civil aviation. There is the pressure to get the student through in bare minimum time, from both the student and the flying school (it looks better on the recoords). I'm not saying that standards are being ignored, but I'm sure that over the years, commercial pressures have a "dumbing down" effect.

Yes, I wouldn't have liked to see my students with over 30* AoB (particularly climbing turns) in the circuit because they don't necessarily have the experience at that stage to do so and the ground hurts.

In terms of "Finger Flying" to maintain a S & L attitude, I needed 7! Guess it's a good opportunity to see if I had the aircraft trimmed or not. :) The Finger method is just a starter to help the student build a picture. (The instructor most definitely not be using the method except as a quick demo to the student) Not recommeded in the circiuit though, and by that time, they should have learnt the correct attitudes anyway or more area work for them.

To demonstrate the point, I used to cover the ASI on base with a "post-it" note, say to the student, now set the correct attitude. They would and we'd check the ASI (and most likely be out by a few knots). Next circuit, same thing but probably more accurate. By the third circuit, they generally had the airspeed nailed and trimmed to boot. Their approaches were better too because they were looking outside the cockpit. Worked a treat for their flying (and mine ;) )

Cheers,

LP

[J-Heller]

Chuck,

I always enjoyed reading your posts. Still do. You know a lot, and have given a lot to the forum.

Some of your postings recently have been a bit...well...full on! Three angry faces in the last one dealing with the use of fingers in initial teaching of 'seeing' the attitudes.

Really? When you have just written:

"Any attitude is taught and learned by looking at the attitude desired....period... "

I look at the above posts and it seems that you are not at loggerheads with anyone at all....wasn't it the general consensus that people were working at? - that the use of 'fingers' was only to get ab-initios started on some way of 'seeing' - in your words "looking at the attitude desired"

To be later dispensed with.....

"Period!"

All the best,


JH

[eyeinthesky]

When I first started my PPL in a 152 out of a grass airfield I was taught when lined up on the runway for departure to position the control yoke so that I could lay 3 fingers flat between the hole the control lock goes through and where the column emerged from the instrument panel.

The effect of this was twofold:

1) It protected the nosewheel on the undulations of the grass whilst preventing 'wheelbarrowing';

2) The aircraft would gently fly itself off the runway at about 60-65 kts and climb at 65 kts.

In the early days it was most useful when I had enough to think about anyway. I would probably still use it if I instructed out of a grass airfield.

The same people who are objecting to the finger method are those who I suppose will disagree with using the 'rivets along the cowling' method of overcoming offset seating effect when teaching turning.

The point is that anything we as instructors can use to help others readily grasp what we're driving at has got to be good. What works for some might not for others, that's the interest in teaching! It is just one of many tools in the bag. If, as has been said already, your toolbag only has one tool in it, then you need to examine what you are doing.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

O.K. Guys / Gals and those of you who are not sure what you are:

By now most of you know I try and post accurate info here.

That of course does not make me right all the time, nor is anyone.

All of you must agree that one of the most difficult tasks we as humans have is adjusting to change, be it in flying teaching methods or racial, cultural differences as society changes. We tend to flock together so to speak and generally retain subliminal prejudices based on our cultural, social and daily experience related learning environment.

I guess to some I may appear intolerant of others ideas and beliefes, nothing could be further from the truth. I read I comment I learn. I also try not to make my comments on a personal level. However I must admit it sure can be taken that way and you should take me to task.

Just a few more comments on the prejudice thing, I hate any bureaucracies because they are so inflexible and such a detriment to getting anything accomplished. However on a human level I would far rather deal with a corrupt official in Africa for the simple reason I understand the culture and the underlying reason for the corruption, the need to survive which requires money. Coming from that mind set I really have no problem with these people, the ones I canno't abide are the bureaucrats who hold us to ransom because they have the power to do so. So **** em I hate them.

But I do not have any animosity toward my fellow aviation colleagues, it is that I do get discuraged to see such a general low level of pilot skills and knowledge that seems to prevail in to days training, end products.

Now here is a time related and equipment fact.

When I learned to fly ( 1953 ) we had only tailwheel aircraft to learn on and the private license was a thirty hour course. Generally speaking most of us completed the course close to or at that time limit. And the accident rate as far as I can determine was lower.

Question?

Could that be because of better instructors and a less dumbed down method of teaching?

Oh by the way for an old burn out I have managed to adapt to new technology and have no problem working all the new fangled thingies out there like Airbus and its three laws of flight not to mention the pretty video game you play when you fly it. :D

So when I get to intolerable just tell me to get stuffed. :D :D

Cat Driver:
....................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[J-Heller]

"Generally speaking most of us completed the course close to or at that time limit. And the accident rate as far as I can determine was lower.

Question?

Could that be because of better instructors and a less dumbed down method of teaching? "

Good point Chuck - interesting point, and a better direction for the thread to head in. Let's hear exactly how instruction is being dumbed down, and what are the forces behind it?

All views would make for an interesting read,


Laurie.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

J-H:

I hope a lot of ideas and suggestions are made now to see if maybe we can improve the flight training skills all over the world.

I will make one more suggestion and that is there must be incentive and incentive is partly driven by money.

Here is my suggestion:::

Give the student the choice of learning to fly at a fixed cost.

The instructor will be paid for every hour the student flys both dual and solo.

There will be no ground briefing cost to the student as the instructor will be motivated to ensure the student learns everything necessary to finish the license in the time frame required by the Government requirement in that country.

So lets crunch a few numbers.

Canada 45 hours minimum as per. Transport Canada.

Cessna 150 average cost ....Dual $ 130.00
...Solo $ 85.00

Now lets have a fixed cost for the license at say $6500.00

We divide $6500.00 by 45 hours we get $144.44 per. flight hour.

We pay the instructor $50.00 per hour the airplane and student flys.

The company now makes $94.44 dollars per hour for the Cessna 150.

Play with this suggestion and compare the average cost paid for students in your country due to excessive hours over the set standards and there is merit in my suggestion.

Of course there will be other costs involved, here in Canada for instance there would be ground school, but hey, you know what? You can buy a correspondance course for about $500.00 approved by T.C.

I will stay out of this discussion for a while and let all you keeners out there wrap your minds around a new concept for making a better living.

For Gods sake don't tell me you can't teach someone in the time laid out by your Government. I bet with incentive you would really do a better job and reach the required time frame. :D :D

I am also confident for every reason found that this is not workable, someone will figure out how to make it work. :)

Cat Driver:

Cat Driver

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

The "fingers" method is useful in the very early stages to help them visualise the right attitude in the demo of straight and level flight attitudes, but after that there is no need for it IMHO.
As for limiting the bank angle in a climbing turn, this is to do with maintaining a rate of climb, if they turn crosswind with a bank angle of more than 15-20 in a PA38 or C152, it can lose a significant amount of climb rate, as can be demoed in the climbing lesson.

Agree though that there are a lot of misconceptions that new instructors take as fact. One common one is that full opposite rudder should be applied in a wing drop stall.:eek: and that wings level is more important than airspeed :eek:. Many are taught just to pass the test and have no idea how to teach, many are too inexperienced or immature to do the job well. But we all had to start somewhere, and it's the CFIs job to help them develop in the right way.

[Centaurus]

Back to the original post about fingers. It is about gimmicks. Perception of nose attitude depends largely on how you sit in the seat. Some people are tall and some short. The number of fingers pertaining to an attitude may therefore vary. Some have short arms - others have longer arms and therefore the distance between the outstretched arm from the eyes will vary. Therefore the finger attitudes vary. Please do not treat students as a kindergarten teacher would treat small children.

Another case in point. Using a measured point on the control column shaft as a method of assuring lift off at the right speed or attitude is fraught with gimmicks again. Flying off at 65 knots in a C152 by using control wheel shaft measurement is nonsense. The POH states that on a normal surface you lift off at a set IAS which is 52 knots I believe. For a 10 degree flap take off lift off is 50 knots.

A similar example to the control wheel shaft theory which I was astounded to encounter recently, was an instructors advice to keep the gust lock hole just visible on the shaft and this will give you the correct amount of back pressure on the take off run in order to keep the weight off the nosewheel. Bloody hell - is there no end to this sort of teaching?

One hears so much superfluous and gimmicky advice from flying school instructors. For example: Flaps identified and up. Why does one have to identify the flap lever in a warrior or a C152? Yet another gimmick for the hapless student to ponder.

[eyeinthesky]

Centaurus:

I tend to agree with your general sentiment that you cannot teach by numbers, but must take exception to your round condemnation of these 'gimmicks' (which is indeed what they are) which we can use to help a student visualise what he/she needs to in the early stages.

Assuming you do not use '3 fingers equals straight and level' or whatever process, how would you explain to someone how to select a nose attitude?

- Horizon 3 inches above the coaming? People's perception of inches is different (especially women and men!! :D )

- Pick a convenient dead bug and put that on the horizon? Next time the bug might not be there or the aircraft might be different?

- Use the AH or other instruments? Not a good idea in visual flying.

Don't forget, the teaching is a gradual process, ideally ending with the student able to make all their own assessments and decisions which is what we call piloting. If we can start them on the way and give them confidence by using these gimmicks and then refine the techniques as we go, then that surely has to be good.

To drum into a student at the first stage that the straight and level nose attitude is 4.5 degrees nose up or whatever and the cruising IAS is exactly 95 kts with precisely 2350 RPM set might be correct but could drive their appreciation and confidence down, actually slowing the learning process.

I, too, am strongly against the dumbing down of training and the present trend towards learning to pass exams rather than understand a subject, but I think we should be prepared as instructors to use ALL the tools in the bag to achieve that understanding. It didn't do me any harm to use the method I described originally to get airborne from that grass airfield, an of course I moved on to a deeper understanding of what I was doing.

[Low-Pass]

As has been pointed out, the idea is to get an idea across to a student, whether it be the correct attitude or a point of airmanship.

I totally agree that the position of the control wheel pole is irrelivant during take-off - it's about making the "picture" out the front right. You can use fingers, screws on the cowling, air vents (on Cessnas), compasses, or anything you like to get the idea across to the student. That's what counts. As pointed out, perceptions/perspectives vary from student to student. The shouldn't vary for a student every time s/he gets into the same aircraft.

The purpose of identifying the flaps lever prior to raising flaps in a fixed wing is to engrain in a students brain at an early stage that it important to do things conciously rather than automatically. Later, when the student moves on to an aircraft with a retractable gear, s/he will hopefully not raise the gear by mistake (as has happened so many times before, and will again). The validity of this is questionable, but the intention is to have the student think about his/her actions.

Centaurus - Just curious, are you an instructor?

[BEagle]

Too many spotty kids trying to make something simple appear complicated here, I fear.

Chuck is 100% correct. One shows the attitude for a particular phase of flight and then describes it to the student. Whether one uses rivets up the windscreen, fingers above the horizon or whatever, so long as the student can select, hold and trim the same attiude when given control, that's all that one wants.

Given half a chnce, I'd require any new FI to have at least 1000 hrs experience before teaching others. Very regretably, flight instruction is too often a method by which wannabee people-tube first officers (deliberate lower case) gain hours at the expense of others.

...and there is NO limit for the number of hours you need before you are immune from learning from others!!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Beagle:

When you listen to all the neat little phrases that have come into play in the instructors vocabulary, such " another tool in my tool box " you will find that they are only slick sounding words with absoutely no meaning to the reality of flight instruction. It is evident that the instructor knowledge / skills are going down hill.

Just ride with the average new pilot today and it is evident that the basics of flight were glossed over.

Very few understand attitudes and movements,,,,almost no one has the vaugest idea of what rudders are for, except taxiing so how in hell can they fly an airplane accurately????

No wonder they land on the nosewheels, I am suprised they land more than once. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Cat Driver:

[Centaurus]

Eye-In_the Sky.

It is worth putting a new student in a simulator for the first two or three lessons of effect of controls, cockpit familiarisation, climbing and descending etc. Part of the content of these sequences is to have the student note the instrument indications. They don't get airsick and are not subject to radio and intercomm instructions coming in their ears. By the time they get into the real aircraft cockpit they are familiar with the controls and instruments and what they do.

In the air, I use the "About Yea" method of attitude flying. First show the student the level flight attitude. Then deliberately hold the nose too high and then same again with the nose too low. Tell him that those are the wrong attitudes - then show him the correct attitude and say "About Yea". It works every time and beats fingers and thumbs.

Low Pass. If you enjoy the "identify flaps" policy, then to be consistent you must get the student to say "identify" when operating other potentially critical levers such as gear lever, mixture lever, pitch lever, magneto switches, etc. After all, the student may just as easily pull the mixture to cut-off instead of closing the throttle on base leg, or select pitch full coarse instead of full fine, or turn off the magneto key to off as part of a forced landing trouble check. Are you going to have him repeat the mantra "Identified" for all those items? Of course not. Where does it all end?

A case in point is the superfluous drill of calling "gear down and locked" as part of the before landing drill on a fixed gear ab-initio aircraft - based upon the supposition that it will prepare the student for the day that he/she will fly a retractable.

To be consistent one must also teach the student to say "Gear up and Locked" after take off in a fixed gear aircraft.
The former drill is universal at some flying schools while the latter drill is unheard off.

I suggest that students should not be taught to mouth by rote, specific system drills that having nothing to do with the aircraft they are currently learning to fly.

Flying school instructors invariably have a plethora of personal drills that they were taught and which due primacy, they will rarely forget - even though those drills are quite irrelevant. They in turn pass these myths down to their students, who, if they become junior instructors, pass the same myths down the line - and so on. Mythical drills are not a factor in the major airlines so why does it happen in general aviation? One of life's mystery's!

[john_tullamarine]

Just two observations -

(a) calls such as checking that the down and welded gear is, indeed, down and welded .... encourage a superficial attitude to running checklists ... the pilot is at great risk of falling into the trap of calling .. but not observing and confirming .. because the particular call relates to a non-event item. Similarly, with unnecessarily lengthy checklists, there is a tendency to 'hurry the checklist along' with a like trap ... most of us have seen this effect in simulator training.

(b) too heavy a reliance on written checklists can slow the whole sequence down .. why is it that many pilots 'read and do' routine check sequences rather than 'do from recall' (or by conventional scan sequence) and then 'read to check' ? .. it is a different matter with infrequently used abnormal drills, of course.

[eyeinthesky]

Centaurus:

Thanks for your reply. As I and others have said so far in this thread, we all have different methods of achieving the goal of teaching people to become pilots. You have yours and it works for you, and I have mine which works as well, and believe me does not 'dumb-down' the process.

My personal opinion is that your idea of sticking people in the sim first is flawed, as it will encourage them to rely on the instruments far too much at an early stage, and you will have trouble weaning them off using the AH instead of the natural horizon for their attitude flying. The primary effect of rudder is far more obvious with a bootful of rudder and crossed ailerons to counteract secondary roll, for example, than it ever will be by watching the display on the average GA sim. However, that is my opinion, and you say it works for you, so that's your business.;)

Chuck:

I'm sorry if my analogy offended you. You seem, as has been mentioned by others so far, very angry for no apparent reason. Most contributors here have been agreeing that there is a risk of dumbing down which must be resisted, so I don't understand your row of angry faces.

My maligned phrase was trying to convey that I use all the skills I have learnt in my 1200 hours flying to try to teach others to become pilots as well. The exact method varies depending upon the student, but the end result is usually the same. That is what I meant by the toolbox analogy.

While you are having a go at the present state of affairs and the lack of understanding of rudder, for example, you better mention the likes of Cessna and Piper. After all, they are the worst culprits as they designed training aircraft wih Frise or Differential ailerons to overcome Adverse Aileron Yaw and make them easy to put into a balanced turn with minimal rudder. Or does the fact that Cessas are a non-event at the stall and nigh on impossible to spin unintentionally make them a bad training aircraft or one where less low-hours people are likely to kill themselves?
The aircraft you learnt on in 1953 probably didn't have that, did it? Does that necessarily make today's students less competent than you? We used to send 18 year old boys off to shoot at the Luftwaffe with 6 hours in a Spitfire (not the most forgiving of aircraft), and many of them killed themselves taking off or landing. I suppose those that didn't were by definition good pilots. Strange way of weeding out the weak, though!:(

[Centaurus]

Eyeinthesky.

Interesting point about students fixating on the instruments when flying the real aircraft after having flown the simulator. I haven't struck that one before - but I suppose it could happen occasionally. I wonder if that also applies to airline pilots who of course are brought up on a diet of simulators?

All things being equal, I have found that the average time to first solo is decreased significantly when introductory synthetic trainer simulator sessions are used.

On the other hand, have you seen any evidence that students who take great delight in flying Microsoft Simulator 2000 on their PC's are, in the real aeroplane, fixating on their Cessna 152 artificial horizon to the detriment of keeping an eye outside?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi eyeinthesky:

First you will notice my three frowning faces were about pilots landing on the nose wheel, a clear indication of poor training. This phenomena is quite common everywhere, all one needs do is watch light aircraft land.

As to my being very angry about the poor quality of pilots being produced by flying schools, well I am not really angry, rather I would say I am disapointed.

The plus side of this for me is I have a never ending supply of students that require retraining.

As to the use of rudder or rather the lack of use and understanding of rudder, that is as you point out partly due to the design of training aircraft. However you will note there is a rudder on them therefore it is incumbent on flight instructors to teach students the use of the rudder.

Maybe the first few hours of training should be in a tailwheel airplane?

If, of course you can find enough instructors that can fly a tailwheel airplane.

You missunderstand why I am as you state angry, and it is really difficult to explain on a computer keyboard. So I guess I will just once again say flying training in my obversation is becoming dummed down.

And once more, nothing personal, just my obversations.

Cat Driver

[big pistons forever]

I have followed this thread with interest as the subject of the quality of instructing today is near to my heart. The reality is instructing is an entry level job. I got my start in commercial aviation as an instructor and am proud to say I maintain my Class 1 instructor rating even though it is a serious pain to get it renewed. However I only do a bit of freelance instructing to people who are friends of mine. I would never be a full time instructor again because it simply does not pay enough and instructors are frankly treated like S*** by almost every one in aviation. It is unfortunate most flying training candidates do not understand the motto " you get what you pay for ". The irony ,of course , is I now have much more to offer as an instructor than I ever did when I worked the job full time.

I don't think things are ever going to change. Most folks are going to get their initial private and commercial training from a young, poorly paid , low houred instructor, now and for the forseeable future. IMHO the way to higher standards rests with the Chief Flying Instructor. In Canada , at least CFI's are rubber stamped by the Fed's. Yet I have seen the impact a really good CFI has had. If all those young instructors have effective supervision , and guidance from someone who cares you will get good instruction. I think there should be a profesional body that provides the CFI designation, and all Flying training units should have to have a proper CFI if they want to be approved.

That is my two cents.

[moggie]

Look out of the window - see where the horizon goes through the windscreen pillar/prop spinner - memorise that picture, relating horizon to rivets, clock, standby compass, cracks in screen, prop spinner whatever - but lose the "emotional crutch" of the fingers.

Alternatively, sneak a look in at the AI!

[dragchute]

I seem to remember, perhaps back in my days as a boy scout?? that a means of estimating angles was using finger widths. By holding ones arm outstretched the width of one finger represented one degree (or thereabouts) angular displacement between two points on the horizon (or above the horizon).

If one considers that most modern attitude indicators depict angular displacement in five-degree increments then one is able to interpret the logic in the method. After all in visual flight are we not teaching the student that the windshield replaces the AH (and being larger permits much more accurate adjustment of pitch).

On the subject of simulators I believe they teach early students to rely too much on instruments and therefore both lookout and accuracy suffer. Students who spend hours on ‘flight-sim’ games are the worst offenders. A clip-board over the basic panel is one approach I have used during circuit training to force offenders to look outside. There is a need for instructors to watch where students are looking to determine problems. This is an important tool (sorry Chuck) in the instructors bag to visualise the information that the student is using. If he is looking in the wrong place then fix it up and the problem will be solved!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hey Dragchute:

No problem at all. I probably should never have made the comment in the first place. :D :mad: :D

I suffer from the same prejudices as everyone else and some things annoy me for no real reason. :D

Another handicap I have is I have been flying to long and am probably just getting to the point that I am not as tolerant as I should be.

However I do believe that flight training is not as good as it could be due to its being.

"simplified" "dumbed down" "catchy phrases" "to many acronyms" and mainly because the basics are not taught properly, nor understood by some instructors.

Lets examine some comments one hears, reads, about landings. " When you feel the airplane sink toward the runway."

You don't feel the airplane sink, you see it sink.

Another difficulty I have is how pilots are taught where to look in the final stages of a landing. A great number of instructors teach the student to look at the far end of the runway or further to judge the landing.

So lets examine where to look.

I am about to land my helicopter, lets say an R22 on a roof top helipad. When I reach lets say fifty feet above the roof top helipad would you advise me to shift my point of sight up to the horizon , or look a mile or two away?

I bet someone is going to come up with the "speed" thing so lets ask a race car driver doing 200 mph if they look a mile or so ahead of the car as they manouver past other cars?

Cat Driver:

.................

:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[dragchute]

G'day Chuck,

I’ve been flying too long to mate. I’m only twenty-one but I’m trapped in this old body and can’t get out! Intolerant – I guess so but I try to suppress it. Things I have noticed about young instructors who are not trapped in old bodies:

 Always in a hurry to log the next hour therefore the pre-flight and post flight briefs suffer. But they are closer to the student than we are because they were in the hot seat just a year or so ago and can often relate better.
 Don’t have our experience but are often able to improvise. Not always the right solution but some improvisations are novel and worth developing.
 Reluctant to seek advice from their ‘old bodied’ colleagues but if closely and unobtrusively supervised can be redirected by the auto-suggestion method.
 Rules are often a hinderence to the next hour in the log book so they will circumvent the offending rule. ‘Old bodied’ instructors should therefore set high standards to make rule following ‘cool’.

As for what is the right spot to look during landing I guess we all teach differently with the demarcation line dividing the tail-draggers and the non-conventional types (baby boomers). I don’t always try to change a student if someone else has taught him differently and it is working for him. I do however like to know where he is looking so I can also perceive the information that he is processing and teach accordingly. If it isn’t working for him then he needs to change his ‘sight guage’. For the ladies replace he/him with she/her!

Mate, reserve me a spot up there on that beautiful island of yours. Somewhere I can fashion timber into wood shavings and occasionally walk out of the shop to glance skywards in the direction of a radial engine or some such. And maybe drink the odd ale with some other old intolerant aviators.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi again Dragchute:

Yup, Vancouver Island is truly a unique place to live.

I hope to get to Aus. next year to do some flying with HARS, funny thing Aus. is the one continent I have yet to fly to.

Another thought on where to look when landing, try this.

Find yourself a high performance tail wheel airplane maybe a Spitfire or a Mustang. Then try wheel landing the thing by looking way down to the far end of the airport to judge your proximity to the ground. Or better yet find a Grumman Turbine powered Goose, that sucker will do the job just fine.... Why even I screwed up a landing once in the Turbo Goose. :D :D :D

When teaching wheel landings I have them do the curving approach to the touch down so they learn to keep the touch down point in sight at all times, makes wheel landing easy......


Cat Driver:

[Centaurus]

Talked to enthusiastic chappie with total 15 hours in a C150. Subject was stall recovery from severe wing drop. I am sure he must have got it all wrong but he did say that his instructor had told him that if the aircraft stalls with the wind from your left that the left wing always drops and vice verca a wind from the right will cause the right wing to drop.

You learn something new every day in this game!