Safety aspects of FI

[barit1]

As an former instructor, I found that the instructional process diverted me in some measure from my usual vigilance outside the cockpit.
This was brought home to me yesterday with a VFR midair a few miles from a local uncontrolled airport, with a FI and his student among the unfortunate victims. The angle of closure has yet to be determined, so the training aircraft may or may not have had an opportunity to see and avoid.
Does anyone have access to the safety statistics showing relative hazard of midairs in instructional vs. non-instructional flying?

[FormationFlyer]

Out of all of the Airproxes I have reported only 2 I have been involved in were non-instructional. All others (probably around another 6 reports Ive made...) were all on instructional flights....where I had right of way. But that aside I suspect the airprox wouldnt have happened and I would have spotted the conflicting aircraft earlier had I not been instructing at the time.

To be honest thanks to radio you dont have to look at the person you are talking to all the time...and Im as much head out of the cockpit as I can be, but the workload on the instructor is considerable; monitoring of hands,feet, flight log, nav, radio, etc etc its an amazingly high workload environment. We arent superhuman so something must suffer, and the lookout is certainly going to be impacted.

[Whirlybird]

No access to stats, but I agree with FormationFlyer - with the best will in the world, there is a physical limit to what you can do when you're instructing - it's an extremely high workload environment.

especially in helicopters!!!!!!!!!

[jamestkirk]

The workload can be very high as an instructor.

I have been involved in a few close calls.

It's sods law, that when you take your eye from the outside world for a few moments to sort out a student, thats the time when someone creeps up on you, or each other.

I have had two very close calls in the circuit when people have joined in the wrong place/wrong height/wrong side. Or the w@nkers that join crosswind while you are way down the downwind leg and try and cut in.

As I rell my students " if you asre given number 5 to land and you cannot see everyone...ASK"

[timzsta]

Lookout lookout lookout they hammered into me on FIC course. Making a good lookout before you enter a manoeuvre and teaching the student to do the same is the easy part. The hard part is maintaining the lookout whilst the student attempts said manoeuvre and you monitoring and guiding them.

A few weeks ago I nearly busted the LTMA because I was paying too much attention to getting the student to sort out the speed in a climb and failed to notice he had wanded from the heading I had given him. A good lesson learnt for me there.

I am still an inexperienced FI but I try to tell myself if you're not doing or saying anything LOOKOUT and then look for the nearest suitable field in the event of an engine failure.

[VFE]

Would be interesting to see some stats on this but I feel we're on a hiding to nothing.

How many instructors (where and when possible) recieve a FIS from a LARS or similar service during instructional flights and do you find it a hinderance (especially when the freq is noisy!) or a relief? I know that a FIS or even RIS is not an exchange for maintaining a good lookout but what is your opinion on it helping you focus more on teaching the lesson?

VFE.

[Mad Girl]

Just a student...

I've had 2 close encounters during my training so far with my instructor....

1 When some b*stard came flying straight into the circuit to circle a landmark, which just happens to be "IN" the climb out pattern. No intentions of landing, wasn't talking to the tower & and from his actions, I don't think he even realised that there was a grass airfield in the vicinity. :ugh::ugh:

Luckily my instructor and I both saw him - but as I froze - he took the airplane from me to avoid (I was VERY low hours then).

2 2nd time was in haze when we were actually waiting for a RIS as everyone was trying to get one that day 'cos of the conditions.
Straight in front, constant aspect - the worst kind. I didn't spot him at all but luckily he started to turn slightly and my instructor just happened to be looking in exactly the right place at the right time - and HE had control so that I could deal with MY first RIS call. That one was MUCH closer...

I know that a FIS or even RIS is not an exchange for maintaining a good lookout but what is your opinion on it helping you focus more on teaching the lesson

I can't speak for my instructor but I do know that we "both" find RIS is distracting when out and about, and we only use it when conditions really need it for safety.

He's got enough to do monitoring what I'm up to :O without listening to a constant stream of traffic data. And as for me...I'm listening to what he's telling me and don't want constant interruptions on the radio which take my mind off what I'm trying to do - 'cos then the flying goes to pot, and he has even more to do, nagging me to sort it.....

"Eyes outside" has been hammered into me from day 1 and I'll always point out any aircraft that I see, and don't assume that he's seen it.

[timzsta]

Under a FIS the controller is obliged to tell you absolutely nothing about any other aircraft in you vicinity so using FIS as any sort of substitute for a lookout is a complete no no. Even under a RIS the final legal responsibility for collision avoidance rests with the aircraft commander. "No advisory avoiding action will be offered".

What I tend to do is once out in the practice area I monitor the radar frequency and from that you can get a pretty good idea of who and what is where although not every aircraft in the local area is going to be calling up for RIS or FIS. I will only call Radar/Approach when it is time to rejoin.

[VFE]

It is an interesting point re: FIS & RIS. Everytime I request RIS from my local LARS they always ask me to confirm that this is indeed the service I require. I assume the reason for this is that they tend to furnish FIS aircraft with details regarding any other conflicting aircraft they are aware of (even without alt info) which lead me to my inclusion of FIS in my initial question.

Although I am well aware of the legalities of collision avoidance responsibilty (with all the services), it *can* create a false atmosphere of safety when you're regularly recieving traffic info whilst only receiving a FIS. Wonder if anyone else has experienced this also?

VFE.

[hugh flung_dung]

There seems little point monitoring a LARS/approach frequency without taking part - far too voyeuristic for my liking :suspect: - you get all the background cackle without any direct benefit.

We all seem to agree that having to monitor a frequency is distracting when trying to teach; in the open FIR I usually turn the radio down (even in IMC:eek:); but near a funnel point I'd prefer a RIS in any conditions. A FIS seems a waste of time while instructing - cackle but no benefit.
Like others I've been surprised a few times (some while getting a RIS) and had a couple of very near misses (one from a T-tail sneaking-up behind and one head-head with a glider). Bottom line is to subscribe to the small aeroplane big sky theory, keep your lookout going to improve the odds, minimise the risk by avoiding funnel points, and get a RIS/RAS where feasible and necessary.

HFD

[timzsta]

Well I took onboard your comment re "voyeuristic" this weekend and asked for FIS. Now the thing with the approach/radar frequency at the airfield I fly from is that during the weekends on a nice sunny day it is extremely busy. And I mean extremely busy. Sometimes you can call up and be told to "standby I will get back to you your number 3 or 4 waiting". No fault of the controllers its just very busy and a VFR C152 is pretty low on the list of priorities.

So I called up and asked for FIS and was they were only able to offer "very limited FIS due controller workload and traffic density". The next time we spoke was when I called for rejoin an hour later.

So in fact I got very little if any benefit at all from at all, and just took up 30 seconds of radio time that should have been better used elsewhere.