How "hands-on" should an instructor be?

[kevmusic]

Hi all,
I've had to change instructors due to day-off issues and although I get along fine with this new bloke on the ground; in the air he is beginning to sap my confidence. I'm quite a long way through the NPPL course, approaching solo nav. I find that this chap unexpectedly takes control to correct me: usually just a stick movement or two, but I find I can let go of everything and the aircraft is flying itself! Yesterday I had to ask him if I had control again. We're flying a Cub so there is no visual with each other. Sometimes the 'I have control' - 'You have control' dialogue is used, sometimes not. Even when it is, he takes control much more than my last (older, more experienced) instructor.

Is this a fairly common scenario? If it's not how do I get him to stop? I'm a one-to-one music teacher and I know that one's style is a very personal thing and I don't want to give offence.

Any help appreciated.

Thanks.

[BEagle]

It is absolutely essential that the FI uses the formal IHC/YHC handover! This should be instinctive for any FI.

Is this an inexperienced FI? If so, complain to the CFI. In fact complain anyway - he is behaving in a way which is ultimately dangerous and needs his ar$e soundly kicking!!

[foxmoth]

I 2 would go go with Beagle - dangerous for you and him.
How much an individual instructor does hands on will vary enormously and generally the more experienced instructors will tend to be more hands off, but you both must know who is flying the aircraft at any time.:=

[Ex Oggie]

Ditto BEagle and foxmoth. Go have a quite chat with the CFI over tea and biscuits. This needs to be nipped in the bud (assuming it's an inexperienced instructor) as soon as posible for everyones benefit.

XO

[80kts checked]

I agree with the other comments.
The phrase "I have control" is not optional.
Do not hesitate to take this up with either the instructor or CFI.
In the first instance, this is a safety and procedural issue.
In the second instance, you are the customer and you are entitled to better value for your money!

[homeguard]

The instructor should take control only when it is absolutely necessary to demonstrate and explain but using the protocol already outlined.
You are the one learning and you should be doing the flying. Maybe a frank word directly with the instructor should happen first - could easily be resolved and a good relationship formed afterward.
His actions could be over enthusiastic. Make sure that he realises that his abrupt take-overs are sapping your confidence. If he dosn't respond then follow the previous advice.....................

[212man]

Are we talking about wholesale control take over, or small prompts/restrictions on the stick, combined with guiding comments?

[foxmoth]

(assuming it's an inexperienced instructor)

Even if its an experienced instructor then there is no excuse not to be taking control in the correct manner. There is the case that 212man says of a small input or restriction - but the only case I could think of where I might use this is TO/Landing when you may be able to correct a small error without fully taking control, at higher altitudes there is time for the students error to develop more without becoming dangerous and is usually a better learning experience.:=

[kevmusic]

Thanks for all your replies.

Are we talking about wholesale control take over, or small prompts/restrictions on the stick, combined with guiding comments?Prompts and restrictions with comments, yes, but a lot of the time and in upper air (on navex). Don't forget I've reached the stage of having started up, taxied out and left the area for PFLs and steep turns, rejoined, taxied in and shut down all solo; so I do know how to fly! :rolleyes: (This was whilst under my last FI.)

Not sure how the CFI/FI system works at this FTO. It's Weald Air at Headcorn and they're all career instructors with their own businesses.

[Insane]

Any error that needs correction, should be pointed out, and then correctecd in the propper way using the correct procedure, so that the student is aware of what is going on. You are paying for the hours. It is not about how well he can fly, it is about how well he can get you to fly!!

[oldbeefer]

Small nudges etc may be OK at a critical phase of flight, but, where safe, the student should always be given time to see if he can recognise his own error and correct it. That way both he and his instructor know what his capabilities are! Does sound like classic 'new instructor' technique (or maybe old instructor who has forgotten)and needs stopping - should be picked up during his rating check rides.

[BEagle]

"There is the case that 212man says of a small input or restriction - but the only case I could think of where I might use this is TO/Landing when you may be able to correct a small error without fully taking control"

NO!! That's very, very dangerous. The student might think it was a control restriction and overcontrol as a result. The ONLY safe method is the well-proven 'IHC/YHC' mantra.

Just print off this thread and pin it up on the Club noticeboard for the FI to read.

[kevmusic]

It's fair to say he does tend to do this at any phase of flight. :uhoh: There is a fair amount of IHC/YHC too - much more than I'm used to.

[foxmoth]

NO!! That's very, very dangerous. The student might think it was a control restriction and overcontrol as a result. The ONLY safe method is the well-proven 'IHC/YHC' mantra.
Whilst I agree this needs to be done with caution there are times I do not want to take it off the student, if I call IHC then he takes his hands off the controls, in the case for example of a student who is bouncing (mainly tailwheel courses), it can be quite effective to stop the bounce where it should be at the same time explaining "This is where you need it - you have control", because I explain WIHIH he knows what is going on and there is still the correct hand over back to the student who still has his hands on - a technique I have been using with no problem over many years when needed (though kept to a minimum).:cool:

[212man]

I guess like all these queries, we are only being presented with one side of the story. It may well be (and on the face of it appears so) a case of a newby instructor who's a little unsure of himself, and is not as relaxed as he may be, over reacting to things. On the other hand, it could be you have been trained thus far by a slightly gash instructor who fails to correct where appropriate and generally lets you get away with anything, and your new guy is trying to correct all that! I'd bet on the former, but let's not all jump on him without knowing the facts.

Beagle, clearly at altitude the student should be allowed to let mishandling develop without intervention as far as possible, but surely to goodness when landing, the odd prompt "not too far back" with a slight restriction must be better than "IHC," or a little assistance with flare rate ("keep it coming up")? Essentially as Oldbeefer describes (and I think he may know a thing or two about instructing.)

I'm sure we all agree that it is preferable to let the student handle the controls as much as possible, and suddenly taking them off him at a critical moment is fairly hard on his confidence. Much better to debrief something that he has flown himself, but that you had to offer a little assistance with (and he is aware of.)

[BEagle]

In which case it's "I have control, follow me through"!

[foxmoth]

One other case I may restrict the controls, this time done at height with a student who has consistently missed lookout before turning, here I will totally prevent the roll, often using a knee to block the movement (depends on aircraft), the first time the student will look at you with a puzzled look until you ask what he has forgotten, the second and third time he will twig on pretty quickly - very rarely needs more than three times before pre turn lookout becomes automatic.:}

[212man]

In which case it's "I have control, follow me through"!

Well, clearly you have never been involved in teaching helicopter autorotations or rejected take offs!

Surely, if you have a student who consistently tries to put the control yoke/stick in an inappropriate position, it is better to restrain the input and state "hold it there" (thereby helping the motor reflex memory) rather than grab the controls, say "I have control" and try to debrief the situation after landing, to a deflated ego?

[BEagle]

Again, a silly and potentially dangerous thing to do.

Just take control, rebrief and hand control back to the student.

When I was a student in 1968, the instructor had a habit of trying to nudge the aircraft into a spiral descent with his knee. I got fed up with this, so one day I applied full opposite lock with both hands on the yoke, giving him a splendid bruise in the process.

Sorry, but there is no excuse whatsoever for interfering with the controls when the student is flying.

[212man]

Well, clearly that's not a terribly useful and helpful method to employ, and is dificult to justify!

Grabbing the controls off a student at 10 ft and expecting him to then follow through and assimilate your actions, as opposed to a mild input with encouraging comment, is a different story!

[oldbeefer]

Beags - try 'I have control, what you did was....., you have control' during the final stage of an EOL! If you did that every time, the stude would never do an engine off. They usually need a bit of help at the bottom to avoid bending the aircraft (which is normally pre-briefed along the lines of 'don't worry if you feel a nudge on the controls close to the ground'

[212man]

OB, crossed with a PM! Tends to confirm what you've just said though!

Sorry Kevmusic for stealing your thread!

[fireflybob]

Totally with Beagle on this one - It's a case of "I have Control" rather than "Who has Control?"

[212man]

At the end of the day, the instructor always has control: whether it's through the student or by direct action.

"IHC" is too coarse a method in some situations, from the perspective of student learning.

[homeguard]

Never, never snatch the controls off any student at any time!
If at the hold off stage you decide that you must take control then this should have been agreed with the student before the approach was commenced. i.e. "I will allow you to continue the approach and the landing for as long as possible - should it be necessary for me to take control at a any moment I will do so and say I have control, but if I should take control in this manner please understand that I have left it as late as possible for you to correct any error yourself". However, doing this should always be a last resort but the student will now be aware from the onset of the possibilty and therefore maintain confidence.
Restricting the controls or nudging can only confuse. The student must always know that the feel and response to control inputs is theirs and theirs alone, if they are ever to learn. With regard to the approach and landing the student should be encouraged to identify errors and make their own decision to go around. Continously allowing the student to continue beyond their ability is not good and unwittingly will encourage a blinkered attitude such as continueing to a landing at any cost.

[Ex Oggie]

Even if its an experienced instructor then there is no excuse not to be taking control in the correct manner

I was referring to the 'nipping it in the bud'. Of course, if it's an experienced guy, NO excuses whatsoever.

XO

[kevmusic]

212man wrote:
Sorry Kevmusic for stealing your thread!

That's okay - I'm getting used to instructors taking over! :p

Seriously, this is how it feels on the receiving end. I'm in control. I think I'm doing ok, when suddenly the stick is moved, with accompanying words of advice and plummeting of self confidence. That happened at 2,500' the other day and after a minute or so with my hands and feet now off the controls I had to ask him if I had control. At the beginning of the same flight he'd briefed me on a crosswind take off, including full right (into wind) stick at the beginning of the roll. As I was about to apply full power for the roll the stick apparently wasn't over far enough because it was pushed an extra couple of inches with the words, "Full right aileron". This was before we'd begun to move. Stick and rudder were moved by him at some time during all phases of flight. I have about 12 hours solo including about 3 on the Cub, including crosswinds, and he's making me feel like a complete tyro. I'm really beginning to feel like I did at the beginning, years ago.

[oldbeefer]

Have to agree that, in the circumstances you describe, your FI is not doing it right! Time for a word with the CFI I would have thought!

[ShyTorque]

Old beefer,

There was once a certain Shawbury Whirwind QHI who was so "hands-on" after having given the student control he would do his own EOLs and then debrief the student. :rolleyes:

[douglas baillie]

The posting I am replying to reminds me of a relatively recent incident that involved me in renewing my Altiport rating for a well known French alpine ski resort. This was my 10th year of annual renewal. Let me say that I am a professional pilot with extensive experience on type and on many other types. I say this to emphasise that I am not an ab-initio student.

This particular check instructor had a habit of 'nudging' the controls either forward, or back, and also in roll mode without any prior warning, or clear intention. There was no standaer convention. Whilst mildly acceptable at a safe altitude, it became a serious matter on short finals where there was a real danger of a "who has control" question. Worse still, there was an even greater danger of an unintentional and potentially lethal wrestling match ensuing between me and the instructor taking place very, very close to the ground.

I terminated the flight myself by positively handing over to the instrctor accompanied by a very emphatic "you have control", and resolved never to fly with that individual ever again. As far as I know he never took the hint, as I found out some time later that I was not alone in my experiences

He was killed alng with his student in 'unexplained conditions', a few weeks later.

[oldbeefer]

Not me, I hope!

[EladElap]

I'm a relatively inexperienced instructor with only just over 1k instruction hours... but one thing I am so careful about doing is doing and flying to much for a student. Firstly it's there cash, secondly it defeats the point of learning. LET the student screw up... let it snow ball and let them see what the end result will be i.e. while teaching climbing at 2000ft, student climbs at an excessively high nose attitude and gets into a stall! I guarantee if you let the student see the end result it will stick in their head!

As far as mentioning who has control... that is so so so important, ESPECIALLY in a cub where you cannot see eachother. It really sounds like you should perhaps think of changing instructors. You are obviously not enjoying the flying as much as before, and THAT is the most important thing. I've always said instructing is 40% flying and 60% a combo of psychology, teaching, patience, etc.

To me, there's nothing better than being able to patter a student (who has never flown before), to take off the aircraft all by him/herself!

[ShyTorque]

Shytorque -----------------------------------

Not me, I hope!

No, not you! ;)

Nor me; I let my student go all the way to the frange..... oops. :O

[kevmusic]

I have taken the matter up with the senior instructor at the FTO (my old instructor) and I am changing my schedule so that my day off coincides with a time available with him. He has 'had a word' with my last FI and we have parted on amicable terms. I am officially back with my favoured FI. :)

[timzsta]

Good for you Kev. Instructor should only interfere if not to do so would endanger aircraft/occupants. IE - no flare and about to land on nosewheel and possibly going around from low height from a PFL where the large power change and nose up trim can catch out an unwary student leading to high nose, high power, low speed.....

[pablo]

Hi!
well... my humble opinion as both student and wannabe instructor is that Mr. J.S. Denker couldn't be more right:
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/decision.html#sec-instructor-comm
* Ideally, I don’t need to say anything. If we are facing an energy-management challenge, you can notice it (the sooner the better) and deal with it.
* If you don’t deal with it on your own, I’ll start asking questions, such as: “How’s your energy? Are we high and fast, or low and slow?”
* Then come more-explicit statements: “It looks like the angle from the horizon to the aim point is growing. If you don’t do something we’re going to overshoot the runway.”
* Then it escalates to an instruction: “Go around.”
* Then the instructions become more detailed: “Add power. Raise the nose. Start retracting the flaps.”
* Finally: “I’ve got it.”
Honestly I think, unless you screw up yourself, you never know what you are doing wrong.
And then... what about the "always ahead of you" guy? Yeah... that kind of instructor that over-coaches you all the way from block to block? It's really frustrating for me.
Regards / Pablo

[kiwi chick]

The phrase "I have control" is not optional.

A more light-hearted comment here... This was SO ingrained into me during my instructor training, that even when our engine failed during a 200ft AGL go-round, I still had the presence of mind to say...

"I have control...." ;) ;)

KC

[old,not bold]

The engine of the Auster I was Pu/t in, on my pre-solo check by the CFI, stopped at about 350ft on take-off....Aha! I knew what to do, nose down sharpish, trim, switches off, fuel off, land ahead.........

We were headed for a wood. Even as I moved the stick forward I felt the CFI shove it much, much harder as he said, very calmly "I have control". He was an ex-RAF Spitfire pilot and post-war RAF Instructor, retired. He carried out a very steep, diving 180, levelled and put it downwind on the grass. His next words were the other FI staple; "Don't do as I do, do as I say. If the engine fails on take off, get the nose down fast and land straight ahead."

We would almost certainly have been killed by the trees but for his actions. There are occasions when "Hands-on" is good. But I cannot abide FI's whose hands hover 2 inches from the controls during the approach and landing, especially on check rides. Either take control and explain why you're so nervous, or sit on them.

[TheOddOne]

But I cannot abide FI's whose hands hover 2 inches from the controls during the approach and landing, especially on check rides. Either take control and explain why you're so nervous, or sit on them.

...hmmm, yes, I'd agree in principle. During my FI course we spent some time looking at the point during an approach where you might consider taking over. A student will never learn if you take over all the time but you want a) not to bend the aeroplane and b) have them suffer loss of confidence 'cos they can't get it right. I admit my hands DID hover the other day but it was the student's first-ever actual landing after only 4 lessons, made a good job of it so I'll back off next time. Generally, however, it's hands folded in lap. Students notice when you move them to just above your knees in anticipation!

I believe the RAF spend quite some time and effort in determining exactly where the turn-back point is for each aircraft type; there obviously is such a point but we don't teach it. I had a couple of friends in a Jodel a few years ago that suffered an engine failure at around 500' AGL and they successfully turned back, but they were both very experienced instructors. You're generally better off with the 'land ahead' deal as an SOP. Pushing is still the single most important thing to do to save your life in an EFATO.

TheOddOne

[old,not bold]

Drift alert!

there obviously is such a point but we don't teach it. I got myself into hot water expounding in Flight, eons ago, that every pilot, PPL and upward, of a single-engine aircraft should be taught how to calculate, for each take-off with weight, wind, temp etc factored in, the point at which it is safe to turn back after an EFATO.

Practising the steep diving turn and downwind landing should also be an essential feature of the basic SEP syllabus, once pilots understand when to use it and when not to.

Pilots should be taught to calculate whether they can safely land ahead after an EFATO at any point up to that height. If they cannot, they must positively change things so that they can, by reducing weight, start the roll from futher back if that's possible, or waiting for a stronger headwind.

If they do not do all that, all they are doing is hoping like hell that an EFATO won't happen, because if it does and they haven't reached the point where a turn can be done, their straight-ahead landing will probably be into a housing estate. And if they try the turn and have not been taught to do it properly, they'll almost certainly stall and spin in the turn and kill themselves that way.

Every time I hear ATC instructing a usually willing single-engine pilot to "use the intersection" I cringe, because neither seems to understand the danger. Multi's are fine, so long as the reduced TORA, TODA and ASDA are OK for them, but many PPLs appear to think that what's long enough for a B737 must also be long enough for their little SEP with 4 up, bags and a full tank. It isn't, if they have an EFATO and have to land ahead from 400 ft.

Alan Bramson called it "The Impossible Turn", and that's what I wrote against all those years ago. But it isn't impossible; it just needs to be properly taught; ie, when and how. The straight ahead mantra was fine when most airfields had fields all around them instead of housing. It's time now to stop pretending that it's OK to teach a procedure that will probably kill anyone who actually follows it assiduously.

Reliability is now so good that the probability of mechanical failure is very low. But what about human error?

Sorry about the drift!

[foxmoth]

I now teach turn backs on the UH advanced PPL course - not so people use a turn back, but so they see how hard it is to do! This is of course done at height with an altitude (usually a round figure such as 3,000') as "runway height", people then come away with a realistic idea of what is and is not possible, how quickly you need to react and also how much you need to plan ahead if you are going to consider using it if you need to (i.e. on climb out at SOU where there are not many decent options!).:eek:

[timzsta]

Well I flew with a student who hadn't flown for 3 months today. Got out his records and noted that it had been my intention to do circuits with him for his next lesson having completed stalling and slow flight. However wind was right on crosswind limits and student expressed a desire for a "revision" lesson. So thats what we went off and did. Some climbing, climbing turns, descending turns, straight and level, descent with flap.
We returned to the airfield and he did a nice good of configuring on base and was doing fine on the approach with some guidance from me. I briefed him at about 500ft in the flare you will need right rudder, left aileron etc etc all the usual patter. He was doing quite a satisfactory job no cause for alarm and then at about 5ft above the runway he announced "you have control" and let go of everything.
Caught me somewhat by suprise....but I had been taught to "cover the controls" as my FIC instructor put it. Had I been "sitting on them" might be filling in paperwork instead of being on here.

[DeeCee]

Whenever I need a checkout I always have to fly with the same Instructor, because there is no CFI and the FIs have a 'no poaching' rule. This guy makes a habit of nudging the controls whenever he doesn't like something, which is annoying because inevitably I lose the feel - particularly during the flare.

I was taught to wait for the drop during the flare and pull back a little more each time, and it has always seen me ok, always landing on the mains with the stick all the way back. He however, likes an approach to be flown 5knts faster than I was ever used to. The result always seems to be a balloon and a long landing.

Any comments? And what about the 'no poaching' rule? It seems very silly and unbusinesslike to me.

[kiwi chick]

I, for one, totally disagree with flying with only one instructor. :=

What if he's taught you something wrong? Or perhaps I should reword - taught you something NOT to the best of your ability, maybe he has a weakness in one particular area.

When I was taught, I had one instructor - we clicked very very well and appeared to have no problems - but every fifth or so flight, I had a "check" flight with another instructor. [It can sometimes be frustrating we all have little differences in the way we teach, but you learn to adapt!]

As for the "no poaching" rule, it goes with what I've written above. What are they afraid of?

I've seen too many instructors hell-bent on getting hours in their logbook and less concerned with actually doing their job properly - teaching YOU to be the best pilot you can be.

Remember DeeCee - you are paying THEM to teach you. It's your hard-earned money - don't you want to put it to the best possible use?

I would ask to fly with another instructor - make it quite clear that it's just for one flight at this point - and then take it from there.

Good luck :ok:

Kiwi Chick

[DeeCee]

Kiwi, you are right of course, but I don't have a lot of choice right now due to geographical reasons. When I first learned to fly, it was at a big club and I had (mostly) one Instructor. However, the nearest airfield is as I describe above.

Fortunately it only comes up when I need a checkout. Sad really, because the airfield owner would get a lot more time out of us if we didn't have to wait for 'our' instructor to become available, and we could fly with whoever had time first.

Hey ho!

DeeCee

[DeeCee]

After 15 years and many hours of flying this is the only guy I've flown with that does this. Dare I say something controversial here? Someone who has thousands of hours of experience doesn't necessarily make a good teacher. Over the years I've flown with good and poor teachers, who all knew their stuff, but put it across with varying degrees of success.

[waldopepper42]

A little anecdote, not about establishing who has control, but more about understanding your student!

When I was "in the circuit" during my PPL I flew with an instructor who rarely moved his hands more than two inches from the controls, and would tend to take over during the last part of the landing, when I screwed it up!

I bumbled around the circuit time after time getting all the bits right, except for the last 50 ft when it all seemed to go pear shaped, and my trusty instructor saved the day.

Then one day my usual instructor was not available and I went instead with another guy.

First circuit, as normal - OK until the last few feet when I had the usual trouble.

Second circuit, short final, the instructor sat back, folded his arms :eek: and said the words I'll never forget: "don't just f****ing sit there, do something"! The ensuing landing wasn't pretty but after a couple of bounces we went around for another go. Things got steadily better, with the result that I went first solo at the end of the hour!

Afterwards, my instructor explained that he noticed that I was visibly relaxing (didn't feel like it to me!) as the ground approached, as I unconsciously expected the instructor to take over. So he decided not to!

So the moral is: whether or not you're too hands on depends on your student, and identifying what is needed to both be safe and progress his skills.

Amen.

[ACARS]

I am very low hr student PPL just started flying after 7 yr break (now have money!). I am very happy with my instructor. Just had a 2nd and 3rd lesson this week and I am now taxing on the ground and doing all the startup etc. I tell him when he can 'call for start' and 'call for taxi'. In the air he clearly follows IHC/YHC even it's to demonstrate a very minor correction. I already feel am in a proffessional environment with him.

However, compared to my instructor from 6 yrs ago, they have different teaching techniques. Never in the past did my instructor placed emphasis on keeping the aircraft in the balance when adding power/turning etc (using rudder).

I will stay in one instructor (the most important thing for me) but I think it's healthy to change once in a while, but maybe only for one lesson.