What do they teach flying instructors these days?

[FlyingOfficerKite]

What do they teach flying instructors these days during a FIC - and more importantly what instruction do they pass on to their students?

This might seem a frivolous comment, but judging by the discussions taking place on this and the Private Flying forums some of the 'basics' seem to have been forgotten.

Some interesting comments regarding PFLs, use of carb heat and selection of flaps in a turn, for example.

Now I fully appreciate there are variations in teaching method, but surely the fundamentals of the exercise remain 'cast in stone' so as to speak no matter where the instruction is given or by whom?

My own instruction, and instructing, has followed a seamless transition from private pilot to line pilot flying jets.

Now there may be 'more than one way to skin a cat', but I cannot recall any training being in contradiction to the basic flying techniques taught at PPL level. These techniques and exercises after all find their roots in military flying training which has been developed, tried and tested over many years.

Maybe I'm being naive, but some of the comments made bear no resemblence to the methods I was taught. Who for example would ever consider flap asymmetry as a reason for not selecting flap in a turn in a light single? Hardly the most important issue I should have thought and one to be resigned to the bar as a topic for discussion when flying was over. I have NEVER been taught that might be a problem during early training. The problem of flap asymmetry is a problem full stop, never mind whether you're in a turn or not - and one most likely taught during advanced flying training, particularly in airliners where there is both indication and procedure for dealing with such events?

The student has enough, and more important things, to think about in early training without bringing into the equation one-in-several-million-to-one events.

Maybe it's not a true reflection of flying instruction today those comments made on PPRuNE, but the impression is that there is too much 'interpretation' and not enough 'adherence' by flying instructors to the syllabus laid down for the training of pilots for the PPL today?

Concern has also been voiced elsewhere that pilots coming through the training system 'do not know the basics'. Whereas no doubt the approved schools comply with standard training techniques, no wonder such comments are made if the comments on PPRuNe reflect the level of knowledge and standard of training generally in the UK.

None of the schools and clubs I have attended have ever been wanting in this respect, so where do these ideas come from?

KR

FOK

[BillieBob]

Alister - When was the last time that a light single (or twin for that matter) suffered from flap asymmetry?

[mad_jock]

Its rare because in virtually all light aircraft the flaps are controlled off a straight rod which links both flaps to one point of control.

That point of control is on purpose designed to be the weakest link. So if there are any jams etc it will sheer leaving both flaps in a fail safe symetrical condition. In most cases the flight loads will run them to zero. I have had this when a pin sheared in a PA28 a big bang and all the flap went. And the reason it went was because 3 known dicks used to regularly stick the flaps out above the flap speed cause some spanish prat of an instructor told them it didn't do any harm. And they liked getting the leans when they did it.

The next point of failure are the rods which actually push the flap out and down. These should be checked on every pre flight and are checked and greased by the engineers every 50 hours. All wire locked and split pinned.

The next failure point is the guides and hinges again these are checked every 50 hours and all are wire locked and split pinned. Every so often as per the engineering schedual they are dye pen'd NDT for cracks.

Then there is the rod which is graded metal and if that goes I suspect your wings have come off cause the only way that will break is due to fatigue or corrosion issues and if it is in that bad nick I would hate to imagine what the main spar is like, and you have more problems than what your flaps are at.

Putting flaps out in a turn is not an issue its just folk law as FOK states.

If your student has been taught to fly by attitude the issues with airspeed etc are not a factor cause if they fly the attitude and set the power all they have to do is trim out the forces. And as been discussed on the other threads to do with approach speeds the attitude that will be required to stall the thing is that hurrendous they won't get to that stage. If you are at circuit speed and power setting and pull the whole lot of flap in one go with no control input you will not stall. The nose will go up the airspeed will go down the nose will drop and the aircraft will naturally come back to an airspeed which will be above stall and a decent rate. You will of course be totally off profile.

[Whopity]

What do they teach flying instructors these days during a FICThe content of a FI Course hasn't changed much over the last 50 years. Ron Campbell via AOPA introduced the RAF method of instructing in the 1950s and then the JAA Course was based upon the same concept in the 1990s. In the late 80s the CAA introduced CPL level knowledge, an ICAO requirement that had been previously met by having a pre-entry examination. In 1999 the theoretical training increased from 55 to 125 hours and the Flight training by 2 hours though the mandated training less mutual remains at 25 hours.

The RAF have moved on since the 50s and there is now something of a split in the FIC World between the 1950s style training and the more up to date 1990s style training. In most cases an FIC Instructors view of the World is largely based upon his own training.

In theory the candidates should be better qualified than say 25 years ago however; as another thread reveals, you can start a FI course on the basis of an Integrated CPL with probably no more light aircraft experience than the average PPL graduate.

There is clearly a difference in the content of FI Courses from one JAA State to another.

Since the JAA came in, the former requirement for a test every 13 months prior to upgrade, has gone, reducing the level of standardisation at an informative period of a new instructors development; I came across one FI(H) who made it all the way from FI Restricted to FIC without any additional tests after the initial.

Some of the strangest ideas seem to come from some of the longer standing FIs who probably influence the newer FIs in the absence of traditional standardisation.

Alister. Flap Asymmetry occurs in systems where the flaps are driven by different mechanical devices, not a common torque tube! Not deploying them in the turn is to reduce workload at a critical time.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD!

[Cows getting bigger]

I don't not teach flaps in a turn - I try to teach pilots to plan ahead. By all means, feel free to lower the flaps in a turn if you have planned to do it and are aware of the potential pitfalls (personally I don't sign up to the assymetric argument as far as basic PPL training is concerned). However, IMHO there are too many pilots who do not plan ahead, they let the nose drop when reducing power, they then struggle to get to Vfe lowering the flap as soon as the airspeed enters the white arc. Sure, there are times when this is appropriate but in the early stages of learning to fly we should be teaching pilots to plan ahead. Only when they have that element sussed should we be honing/developing their skills.

There is a similar argument regarding AOB on base-to-final turn where student pilots are regularly admonished for using anything more than 15 deg AOB. Personally, I don't have a problem with a greater AOB as long as the pilot knows what he is doing and how to control the turn. I see it as my responsibility to take the student pilot into such situations. Consequently, if I fly with a chap who yanks on 30+ AOB on final without lowering the nose whilst also applying a bootfull of unbalanced rudder I will take him up to 4000ft agl and demonstrate exactly where that type of handling will ultimately take him.

Turning to the bigger picture, I would like to shy away from too much standardisation. I don't want the CAA (or even my CFI) telling me that we should do crosswind landings one particular way; I don't want to be forced to use Point-and-Power; I don't want SCA to be the prescribed VFR navigation technique. I want to be able to show my student pilots all the various tools in the box and let him/her decide which ones they are going to use.

[mad_jock]

Turning to the bigger picture, I would like to shy away from too much standardisation. I don't want the CAA (or even my CFI) telling me that we should do crosswind landings one particular way; I don't want to be forced to use Point-and-Power; I don't want SCA to be the prescribed VFR navigation technique. I want to be able to show my student pilots all the various tools in the box and let him/her decide which ones they are going to use.

I agree but we need standards about what the tool box consists of and also standards as well about whats acceptable. I think we both know what is in the tool box and are both happy if the pilot uses one of the accepted methods to do a paticular exercise. The problem that is an issue is that there are loads of instructors out there that don't have the complete toolbox of methods. The student has to change their method of operation to the particular instructors perversion and fad idea about what is the correct method.

There are regional fads around the country, some areas stick extra speed onto approach for gusts others don't. Some like this point, think putting flaps out in the turn is the height of bad airmanship. Others have bizarre checklists for every stage of flight. Some even do stalls differently but thankfully the CAA has actually done something about this in the instructor seminars to try and get it sorted. But I suspect that there will be some die hard CFI's out there that will not do the methods advocated in the seminars. They will stick to the method that they have done for the last 20 years. There mate that does thier FIE and FI renewals will never pick them up on it. There are schools out there that teach to power out of a fully developed stall holding attitude. How the students mange to get by a test I don't know I presume the CFI that dictates that method is the examiner or none of them manage it so the nose drops and the examiner thinks they are doing it properly.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

There are schools out there that teach to power out of a fully developed stall holding attitude. How the students mange to get by a test I don't know I presume the CFI that dictates that method is the examiner or none of them manage it so the nose drops and the examiner thinks they are doing it properly.

I seldom read this forum because reading some of this stuff is detrimental to my well being and very stressful if I get to thinking how dumbed down the flight training industry has become.

Truly scary.......:sad:

[mad_jock]

To be fair thats very rare.

A more common one is to shove the nose down when on the finals configuration on the stall warner activation.

The usual line during debrief is
I:Why did you apply forward control movement
P:I put the nose down to break the stall
I:But you wern't stalled.
P:But if I don't I will stall and spin in.
I:how can you spin in if you wern't stalled.
P:O!
I:What is this exercise meant to simulate?
P: Stalling on Finals.
I: Is it not meant to simulate approaching the stall on finals and reacting to the stall warner?
P: I don't know but thats what I was taught by xxxx and he has 10,000 hours of instructing.
I:Ok how much altitude did we loose?
P: err 150ft
I: So thats not very healthy if this happens at 100ft.

etc etc

It's the same with steep turns, folk are doing HASSEL checks before doing them. They then do the most beautiful coordinated turn into a just 45 deg turn you have ever laid eyes on, very slow roll in. Haven't a clue its an emergency avoidance exercise. When you demonstrate one properly they poo themselves which leads me to suspect they have never seen one demonstrated properly.

Same with examinors you get one that will come in and tell you "good to see a spirited well controlled steep turn" and another one will come up to you after the debrief and ask for a private word "The student was very vigorous rolling into there steep turn and said thats the way they were taught to do it. Is this correct." "yep and what was the roll out like?" "that was perfect and in future could you ensure that roll in is at the same rate" MJ wanders off thinking well thats you not getting used again.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

What is a HASSEL check?

I have kind of lost track of all the aviation talk in fact I can't even remember what the secret hand shake is any more so I'm sort of an outsider these days. :O

[BigEndBob]

Is a 45 steep turn a collision avoidance exercise?

I would would be going more like 60 or 70 degrees, max rate turn nibble at the stall (warner). ok a bit extreme for the student, but a life saver.

45/60 i always thought was a co-ordination exercise.
Demonstrate that you could turn around a spot without dropping into a spiral dive.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

HASELL stands for Height (sufficient to recover), Airframe (flaps/gear config), Security (seatbelts, baggage etc), Engine (P's and T's, carb heat, mixture), Location and Lookout.

You do all that just to teach a 45 degree bank angle turn?

Or are you just pullin my pecker?

[mad_jock]

Well there we go I was taught they were for avoidance and teach them with a sharpish coordinated turn in to 60deg AoB and a normal rate of roll out. The spiral dive recovery was for when they mucked it up and forgot to put the power on and/or let the nose drop in any turn. The rolling out on a heading was for avoiding action given by ATC. In further training on type ratings I have done them to 45 degrees as per FOM using similar techniques and have used it for real a couple of times. It just seems common sense to me that its a useful skill to have for any pilot. And if it isn't in the syllabus it should be. What are they emant to do use a 30deg AoB turn to get out of trouble?

The round a point thing I thought was a yank exercise?

And max rate on the nibble for getting out of trouble if you went up a Glen and had to turn back.

I only ever had that one examiner that moaned about students doing it.

I am quite happy to be proved wrong after all these years though and am quite happy to take Whopity's word for it.

Just shows though that there isn't much standardisation between FII's so what hope is there for Instructors being even remotely similar.

[sapperkenno]

And max rate on the nibble for getting out of trouble if you went up a Glen and had to turn back

I was taught that out in the States, as a "Canyon Turn"... but we rolled to about 60deg, dropped all the flaps if the speed allowed, nudged up the power and pulled. That was in a supercub, which didn't seem to mind all that much, and was one of the Chief Flight Instructor's party tricks, just to show what could be done. It may help one day, if you get it ingrained into muscle memory and carry out the maneuver if/when you need it... But, you shouldn't really have got yourself into such an awkward position in the first place should you??


I only ever had that one examiner that moaned about students doing it.

That's hardly surprising, as it's the kind of trick somebody is likely to do when showing off to their mates (if they are that way inclined). They learn at regular flight schools, doing all the usual boring stuff, then some high time hero (in their eyes) shows them this trick, so they go out with their mate and royally screw the whole thing up.


I'm all for teaching techniques above and beyond those required to pass a PPL skills test, and I think, for safety's sake, it would be better to develop these kinds of skills in pilot's in a well structured, well taught kind of a way. I was lucky to be taught by experienced, highly skilled aerobatic people, in aircraft suitable for the job... but many are not.
The main thing that shocks me to be honest, is that a lot of pilot's I've flown with, have no interest in learning such things, recovering from unusual attitudes, spinning, aerobatics... flying at minimum airspeed, steep turns, slipping... so what does that tell you?

[FlyingOfficerKite]

More specifically:

Height sufficient for recovery by 3000ft agl;
Location: Clear of cloud, built up areas, aerodromes and controlled airspace;

Lookout: Clearing turns 180 degrees left and right to check for other traffic in the vicinity level with and above and below the aircraft.

But even for steep turns the clearing turns are taught as UK airspace can be quite congested at times and it is regarded as good airmanship point an essential safety point.

Training areas in Northern England at least are often fairly restricted in both vertical and horizontal extent and used by light aircraft and micolights. I've had some encounters closer than anticipated even with a good lookout so the clearing turn procedure is taught even though steep turns in themselves may not be a particularly demanding exercise in terms of airspace requirement or aircraft handling.

KR

FOK

[mad_jock]

I wouldn't teach your canyon turn to a PPL student.

It is required sometimes up North you can check the wx on the East coast and everything is great, ring up oban and its cavok. Wx for SYY and BEN is great as well. Then off you go down the Great Glen or towards Ullapool and there is a wall of rain from ornagraphic relief running as a wall north south down the west coast. It would be taught as a post PPL mountain flying course if they wanted to do it or on the hour with an instructor for want of something else to do.

I honestly don't teach it as a trick. Its briefed as one of the purposes of the exercise. And as far as I know it is part of the the PPL skill set to be taught. At least I know that if one of my ex students unfortunately needs to get a bit of bank on so they don't hit another aircraft or object they can do. What do everyone elses students do? 30 AoB and hope for the best or are they meant to make it up as they go along?

As you say most students don't actually like doing it that way intially. They understand my reasoning for doing it and do it usually to a very high standard. It also seems to give them more confidence using a heavier hand of control inputs when required.

It was the method I demonstrated in my intial FI test and the one which I did to renew my FI rating both of which included my patter for the reason for doing the exercise, the tests were done with different examiners. So it can't be that uncommon, all the other instructors I have worked with have also taught it this way.

As said before it seems the FII's arn't all singing from the same sheet.

[Piper.Classique]

There are schools out there that teach to power out of a fully developed stall holding attitude. Yeah, I had a fresh minted CPL try that in a Rans Coyote when converting to type. Interesting.......

But even for steep turns the clearing turns are taughtSo, you do a turn to see if it is OK to do a turn? Surely if it is a collision avoidance exercise you need to turn away from the hazard smartish? Of course, if it is a co-ordination exercise that is a different matter. 45 degrees isn't really a steep turn, though, is it?

[BillieBob]

In almost 40 years as a flying instructor, both military and civil, I have often taught the selection of flap in the turn - when you are flying an oval circuit, as in the military, you don't have much option. I know of no occasion when a student, even on first solo, has lost control, stalled or entered a spin as a result of selecting flap in the turn (or, come to that, of any instance of flaps extending asymmetrically).

Of course, Alister, if you are suggesting that civil students are not as capable of learning to do this safely as military students of the same experience, who demonstrably are, that is an interesting statement on the ability either of civil students or of civil instructors! Not, I hasten to add, a statement with which I would agree.

At the same time, I have never taught a student to do clearing turns before steep turns - utterly ludicrous!!

[Cows getting bigger]

Hmmmm, I don't teach a clearing turn either. I teach (ie I was taught to teach) good lookout and, in the case of a high wing aircraft, this would include raising the into-turn wing first to have a good look. BB, there are well documented examples of student pilots (and qualified pilots) crashing after entering a turn with full flap. Slightly different to the scenario being discussed but indicative of a failure to control an aircraft in such a configuration.

PS. I would love to teach oval ccts (complete with flap) as I was taught by the military. Unfortunately............ :bored:

[BEagle]

Turning to the bigger picture, I would like to shy away from too much standardisation. I don't want the CAA (or even my CFI) telling me that we should do crosswind landings one particular way; I don't want to be forced to use Point-and-Power; I don't want SCA to be the prescribed VFR navigation technique. I want to be able to show my student pilots all the various tools in the box and let him/her decide which ones they are going to use.

Absolutely NOT! Whichever techniques the school has decided upon, those should be taught to all its students. Standardisation is essential if the student is not to be totally confused and non-standard mavericks are the bane of a CFI's life. Of course point-and-power and SCA are so easy for the student that many dinosaurs don't trust them - but that's irrelevant in this thread.

Clearing turns before steep turns? Daft. Just a good l00kout before, during and after the turn.

MRTs on the buffet nibble? Most light spamcans don't have a decent buffet nibble, so it is very difficult to teach the practice, unless you have a Chipmunk or Bulldog to hand.

[DFC]

This thred is proving to be a great example of why instructing standards are on a steady decline in many places.


One person says;


Its rare because in virtually all light aircraft the flaps are controlled off a straight rod which links both flaps to one point of control.


Clearly that person has failed to notice that a large proportion of the GA fleet are of the Cessna variety - Right flap driven direct from the flap motor in the right wing and the left flap via cable and pulleys - cables that have broken in the past.

Never mind the fact that extending flap reduces lateral stability and changes the airflow over the taiplane.

However, since I can not see how the probability of the left flap in a C152 is increased simply because the aircraft is not at zero angle of bank - what about airspeed, pitch attitude etc etc etc.

But. While I don't subscribe to the "no flaps in the turn in case we get an asymetric flap extension" I do subscribe to the workload management and the - "Fly the Aircraft" and the "Turns are for turning and looking" way of doing things.

If one was to completely comply with the "no flap in the turn" rule then in many places, flap would never be extended because students rarely fly straight and level for long - there is always a tendency to wander in direction i.e. turn!! :D

Seems that everyone has forgotten that exercises 12 and 13 are not in any way designed to teach the student how to fly circuits. They are designed to teach take-off, approach and landing with revision of the exercises 1 through 10a while putting the lessons learned from 10b and 11 (stall/spin avoidance) into practice i.e avoidance!

The circuit is simply an efficient method of doing the above in minimum time.

But like the "never extend flap in the turn", many people these days teach circuits or make other secondary issues primary ones.

Eg. On the IR I teach over the holding fix actions of Time Turn i.e. start the watch then enter the turn. If you forget the watch don't start it during the turn - turns are for turning - complete the turn and thern start the watch but remember that you have spend x seconds (3deg per second) turning.

Same for the heading bug - Check new heading, Move the bug, start the turn. Again don't move the bug during the turn - if you forget, complete the turn and then set the bug.

However, most importantly, I don't teach "never start the watch in the turn".......I do teach "If you start the watch in the turn will you remember how far into the turn you started it and what amount of time is missing from the indicated time.......not easy.......what about doing a 180 degree turn and then starting the watch but adding 1 minute to the indicated time to see how long since the fix?

Getting back to the flap question - all those that talk of asymetery - how many simulate the situation involved and get the student to cope?

How many teach the flapless approach and landing but never later simulate a flap failure i.e. say nothing until the student goes for the flap and then "fail" the flap?

How many "fail" the flap during the departure.

The failure to properly teach many of the posibilities starts wityh a total failure to properly teach exercises 1 and 2 where most of the systems, SOPs, Checklists and procedures are covered.

--------

Is HASELL a check / checklist or is it simply an easy way of remembering some very important things that we should do before an exercise.

I would hope that every instructor on every exercise runs through some form of personal HASELL before getting into the exercise. Most good instructors will be doing it without even realising it.

It therefore is unbelieveable that we could have the situation where an instructor tells a student not to complete a HASELL check before completing an exercise - especially an exercise where it is a very good idea to ensure that there is a good clear area to operate in and a safe height. The student will eventually get their licence and hopefully they will from time to time practice the steep turn exercise.

Never criticise safety. Never. If a student (or instructor) wants to do 5 HASELL checks before exercise 7 then good for them. Could point out that 5 checks may be a bit over the top and that with experience they will probably reduce that but good for taking a safety concious start.

The only argument here against HASELL is that the Steep turn is "an avoidance manoeuvre" and it appears that some think that it should have no warning. Are we not getting a bit ahead of ourselves? Why not teach how to complete a steep turn - level climbing and descending and then when they can do the manoeuvre, use what they know to acheive the objective of avoiding something i.e. simulate avoiding an aircraft / turnback in a valley.

After all, few here seem to have realised that the tighest turn (the one that uses the minimum horizontal airspace) is not going to be level and therefore best way to turn round in a valley is to make a descending turn of minimum radius (climbing turn if you can't descend) - what has that got to do with steep turns????

Who in their right mind is going to avoid an aircraft at the same level by executing a level turn?

If we apply the rationalle of not doing the HASELL check consistently then we should not do them before the stalling exercise. After all, we are training for recovery at the first signs in the worst case - low level. Will that situation come with advance warning and time to compete HASELL????

Instructing standards indeed.

Is anything going to change?

Not as long as we have people with the following opinions;


MJ wanders off thinking well thats you not getting used again.


i.e. Instructor does not agree with Examiner (more experienced individual???) and rather than learning, does what is nessary to avoid changing one's habits.

-------------

What about Navigation - an area where it is clear that filures are happening and most if not all are attributable to basic training at PPL and CPL level.

Yes we do have to teach DR. No we do not have to exclusively navigate by DR. VFR flights use Visual Navigation and this is not the same as DR.

No training system is perfect. TRTOs teaching Airline pilots are relatively overall no better than the Basic RTF and have the same issues regarding how things are taught and the quality of the instruction. It is an industry wide problem.

When it is an industry wide problem where do you think that that failings lie - with the instructors? with the Organisations (RTF / FTO / TRTO) or with the regulator ?

The answer to that is very clear and 100 instructors / examiners talking about various standards and falling safety levels is going to acheive nothing untilo the regulator wakes up.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Holy cow. This thread is scary!

[Tralika]

I like Rod Machado's quote on what you need to learn say to become a Flight Instructor,

More right rudder,

I have the controls,

Did you want to pay me now?

[Cows getting bigger]

Beagle, I guess that's where generations differ. I want a system where a school can cope with different piloting styles. OK, a student should not be confused by different instructors but I get sick of being told "this is the way we have always done things here". Why does my CFI insist on one particular landing technique (ie he doesn't like PnP) but, in the same breath, is quite happy with the various x-wind techniques? What really annoys me is CFIs who have there own 'whims' based on lack of willingness to embrace (or even understand) different techniques.

Yes, I have had a bad day - my CFI has just insisted on a "5kts for luck" addition to SOPs, choosing to ignore the numbers promulgated in the AFM. :oh:

[Say again s l o w l y]

CGB, would you tell me where you teach? I'll ring and have a word.

5kts for luck...You have my permission to kick him in the pods the next time you see him.

Ask him to work out how much extra energy you are carrying by "adding 5kts for luck" compared to the proper speeds. If he doesn't know how to do it, then boot him again, only this time make sure you are wearing steel toe caps.

[Pugilistic Animus]

stalls result from lack of power that why gliders can't stall... so add full power,...because stalls are also caused by lack of altitude
of course on the other hand power controls speed and pitch altitude:ugh:







please don't listen to that!!!

edit: The stall is the MOST misunderstood phenomena in the business and the MOST dangerous,...second most misunderstood subject,...OPERATING STRENGTH LIMITATIONS!!!!

BEagle where I fly you have to do clearing turns for even medium and shallow turns :}

PA

[Dan Winterland]

"BEagle where I fly you have to do clearing turns for even medium and shallow turns"

A clearing turn before you do a turn! How do you know the area is clear before you start the clearing turn?

[mad_jock]

O and another practise which is out there which needs to be stopped.

While in a fully developed stall the stall is maintained while the students uses boots full of rudder to intially lift the wing back to level and then they play tap dancing on the pedals keeping it that way. And only recover when prompted from the RHS.

MJ has visions of SAS walking into a FTO and requesting to see the CFI then booting him in the chugs with the comment "take that you fud, see how much extra energy my boot has at 5knts"

[BEagle]

While in a fully developed stall the stall is maintained while the students uses boots full of rudder to intially lift the wing back to level and then they play tap dancing on the pedals keeping it that way. And only recover when prompted from the RHS.

mad jock - who on earth is doing that? Another candidate for SAS' toe cap / dangly bits interface check!

I don't agree that students should be allowed to be taught by the method which allegedly they prefer. They won't understand the difference in an case - and are more likely to pick the better FI rather than the better method.....

Schools must teach their standard method. That's what the CAA said when this was raised before - and it is obvious sense. Nothing to do with 'your generation' or 'my g..g..g..gen..er..a..tion'!

[mad_jock]

Used to be taught in the NE of England and there was one instructor in Liverpool and I also had students from Southampton that did it (but that was some years ago now). But I haven't come across students from there for a bit. And I can think of 2 CRE's down your way that did it as well (or they used to do 3 years ago and both operated on a class 2 medical so with any luck they have given up, to note it was one of them that wanted the roll in to be cooled down). I have no proof that they did but when you get 5 plus check outs from the same area all doing it, it makes you wonder. Again back to the regional fads.

Quite alot of FL trained students will do it as well.

I was trained to do that when I did my PPL and even got bollocked in the test for recovering before being told so had to repeat. Apparently its meant to show that you know not to use any roll input in slow flight, or some such bollocks.

And I agree with you about using the same technique for everyone for most of the exercises. The one I would teach to suit the students would be Nav, PFL's and Approach. If the standard one isn't clicking I will try another method and see if that does click which it usually does. The fact that I had used a different method with success would be recorded in the student records. I have always worked with instructors that this won't have been an issue with, and it wasn't a problem with the training syllabus.

[DFC]

While in a fully developed stall the stall is maintained while the students uses boots full of rudder to intially lift the wing back to level and then they play tap dancing on the pedals keeping it that way. And only recover when prompted from the RHS.



Can anyone here tell me what happens to the pitch attitude at the point of an upright wings level stall?

Can they then please tell me what happens to the angle of attack when that happens and there is no yaw?

What are they teaching instructors these days indeed.

I have no problem with the student using rudder to maintain lateral level into and out of the stall - in fact I insist on it.

To permit them to have confidence in what the rudder can do I find that it is a good exercise as part of Ex 11 to get them to experience the rudder effectiveness throughout the stall entry and recovery and give them confidence in the fact that RUDDER ALONE will prevent yaw even at angle of atacks above the stalling angle of attack. That leads nicely to the incipient spin entry and recovery.

I am controling the ailerons and elevator and I hold full aft stick for a time to cause some stall entries and exits (note the word exit and not recovery) in quick succession. The student prevents yaw using the rudder.

This is not an exercise in itself it is a good building block. It is not ""picking up the wing" it is "preventing yaw".

These days most of the FI population lack even the basic knowledge of stalls and have a fear of teaching the exercise and consequently students are just taught the 3 entries and recoveries that they will be asked in the test and not 1 bit more.

Ask many if they teach the stall in the climb with full power and you will be met by shock at the idea of doing something so dangerous.......so what chance is there of that FI teaching stalls and recoveries in a steep turn?

If there is a good horizon and suitable height ASFC and the aircraft is suitable then give the student the best possible training - not just the minimal pass the examination stuff.

Therefore I see MJ's comments as being typical of a situation where the person callign for the exercise to be banned does not understand the exercise and probably the fact that those from which he experienced it did not either.

-------------

I agree 100% with BEagle when he says that schools must teach to a defined standard and must have consitent SOPs and methods. That is the only way to teach a consistent course for the general student population. Those who learn quicker will naturally have the time to experience more than one method while at the same time those that fail to understand the standard method may find an alternative method easier. But the decision to use an alternative method in order to progress must be a clear well thoughout decision with a defined objective involving the CFI and the instructor.

----------


of course on the other hand power controls speed and pitch altitude


Power is not one of the aircraft controls. Go back to exercise 1 please.

There is a control/controls that gives the pilot the ability to vary the power. A variation in the power will affect on the aircraft. Ask yourself what that is?

-----------------


"BEagle where I fly you have to do clearing turns for even medium and shallow turns"

A clearing turn before you do a turn! How do you know the area is clear before you start the clearing turn?


I would hope that every instructor will check for other traffic in their chosen trainnig area before starting any exercise but perhaps not and this is why we have instructors starting to demonstrate exercise 6 when one can see that in about 30 seconds they will have to turn to avoid another aircraft which is doing ex 9 nearby.

That is why I say every instructor should be automatically running through some form of HASELL prior to any exercise and consequently they are not in a position of asking the student to make a left turn andnot being sure that there is no traffic - more than abit embarasing when you ask for a turn and the student points out traffic.

Especially so when (as I hope everyone agrees) we tell the students that if we see traffic that will affect us we will always point it out and that they should always do the same i.e. I will never see traffic and wait to see if you spot it also - that is a stupid unsafe game. You see it you tell me. I see it I tell you.

['I' in the sky]

DFC,
I don't think MJ is disputung that rudder can and should be used to prevent yaw. He referred to FL trained pilots among others and the common patter in the states for a long time was and possibly still is "rudder to pick up the wing". This led to an exercise called oscillatory stalling where bootfulls of rudder were used to pick up one wing and then the other. AAIB Bulletin 3/2006 refers.

Here's another one though.
When I did my own AFI course I was taught to teach S & L by demonstrating what S & L was, give the a/c back to the stude not S & L and out of trim, and ask him to regain S &L and retrim the a/c. That would get me fired from my present job.

My first CFI who was also my AFI insructor also used to insist that the only checkpoints which could be used on a nav leg were 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 waypoints - even if there wasn't a feature there !

[mad_jock]

I don't know what DFC is saying cause he has been on my ignore list for talking pish for a year now.

But you have hit the nail on the head on my views 'I' in the sky.

And although not in the stall it was also the reason why the arse fell off an airbus not so long after Sept 11th.

[Say again s l o w l y]

There are certain exercises that must be taught the same way and this is where the CAA should probably sort out a proper in depth syllabus, rather than just headlines.
However, there are others that different techniques can be taught to suit the student, but the basic principles should always be the same.

Mind you, the level of knowledge and understanding that I am detecting in the industry is absolutely gobsmacking. More than that, it's chuffing horrifying.

I was at an instructor seminar last week and some of the points that were raised had me shaking my head in disbelief.

As for the airbus where the tail fell off, that's due to control reversion. Something that few aircraft outside of the military (and even a fair few in it) cannot take. Full and rapid control deflection backwards and forwards puts massive strain on them. Not a very good long term survival strategy that.

[mad_jock]

Yep agreed about that SAS.

But the shall we say base issue was the fact that the pilot was trying to use the rudder to level the wings.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Yep, the poor s*d did exactly as he was trained to do.

Just to complete your mental image M_J, here's the prescribed method for confronting people who teach this sort of nonsense.

http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/fighting/fighting0072.gif

[FlyingOfficerKite]

I take your point on the 'turn before a turn' and the HASELL check.

I must admit this idea has varied between the instructors/examiners I have met.

My policy is to turn to look around the general area, rather than a specific 'clearing turn'.

However, I do it as a part of a HASELL check even if the rate of turn is more of a general look-see than a positive clearing turn as would be carried out before stalling/spinning.

I still think it's best to survey the general area rather than launch straight into a steep turn, even if you do look immediately before, during and after the turn.

One point that was made earlier is the question of standardisation of instructional technique. I think this is neglected by CFIs and senior instructors. It's de rigueur in airlines to have standard SOPs and so it should be within flying schools.

Maybe this is one issue that could be addressed and would help to maintain standards as well as ensure effective instruction. Many students I have flown with have varied so much in what they have been taught with too much variation in technique within the same training organisation. I know it all takes time and is a pain - but I can't remember the last 'instructor meeting' I attended where standards and policies were discussed (this tends to be a problem where a number of part-time instuctors are employed).

KR

FOK

[Pugilistic Animus]

A clearing turn before you do a turn! How do you know the area is clear before you start the clearing turn?

Power is not one of the aircraft controls. Go back to exercise 1 please.

There is a control/controls that gives the pilot the ability to vary the power. A variation in the power will affect on the aircraft. Ask yourself what that is?


:}:}:}

While in a fully developed stall the stall is maintained while the students uses boots full of rudder to intially lift the wing back to level and then they play tap dancing on the pedals keeping it that way. And only recover when prompted from the RHS.



Falling leaf:cool:

PA:)

[sapperkenno]

I was taught by a DPE at one stage, and what he said regarding them made a fair bit of sense, as opposed to "always do them".

If we were gonna be doing slow stuff, like MCA, Stalling etc and weren't going to be very maneuverable... do some clearing turns first. Right/Left 90, followed by Left/Right 90.

If you're doing steep turns, you'll be at or around cruise speed, the ailerons will be nice and effective, and if you need to take avoiding action, the aircraft will respond better, so you can go straight into them without doing a "turn before you turn" as previously mentioned. Just have a good lookout, as you should be doing anyway, being a good trainee flight instructor and all.

Then, if you've done the steep turns as the first maneuver and he wants you to do something else, like a stall demo, or a chandelle or whatever... you already cleared the area when you did your steep turns, so as long as it's not minutes later and you're not miles away, you just get on with whatever the next demo is.

Made sense to me.

As an interesting side note, I didn't hear HASELL/HELL mentioned once out in the States... But we had our own practice area over barren desert/mountains in Class G, and generally did clearing turns prior to acro stuff, checked the T's & P's, set the Prop/Mixture etc, and it was drummed into us to start all maneuvers above 3500'AGL. We also didn't have flaps/gear to worry about, so that pretty much covers HASELL/HELL anyway.
Most of the guys pissed themselves laughing as I tried explaining BUMPFITCH to them too... "How in hell will the brake have been set..?", "The Undercarriage is fixed asshole" etc etc :D As far as I know, in the 25 year history of that flight school, nobody has landed with the parking brake set, despite never been taught to check it downwind, or landed wheels up in anything with fixed gear. :ok:

[DFC]

If you're doing steep turns, you'll be at or around cruise speed, the ailerons will be nice and effective, and if you need to take avoiding action, the aircraft will respond better, so you can go straight into them without doing a "turn before you turn" as previously mentioned.


Would it not be safer to check that there is no traffic first and threby improve the chances of not having to take avoiding action / disrupt the lesson.

I would hope that most instructors will use a few warm-up turns by the student to have a good look round the chosen training area and position the aircraft for the exercise. However, while we are (I hope) doing these actions automatically, the student needs a clearly defined process whereby you can mitigate against the posibility of them doing solo steep turns at 1000ft with traffic all round or as is more often the case - at 3000ft scrubbing the cloudbase and drifting into regulated airspace.

---------

One of the biggest areas in which the system as whole if also failing is in training students in decision making - preflight. I have sen cases where students complete the whole course and never make a decision as to the suitability fo the weather and can even fly for some time thereafter as a PPL with the same situation.

They ring the school at 0900 and ask the "are we flying today?" question to which they get a yes or no answer. This situation of the school / instructor deciding if it is good enough to fly continues right through to the test and beyond if they stay with the same school.

This can have a number of endings - they make a decision at an away field which frightens them and they give up or worse they kill themselves.

Often these pilots go on to be instructors and I have seen how much they struggle as instructors with making basic go/nogo decisions.

The fact that the decision making / human factors element of the course is brushed over does not help at all.

Since the decision making ability of most people turning up to complete an FI or CRI course is very poor, we need to ensure that instructors are trained and tested to improve this both during the course and (in the case of the FI) in the post course training.

[Cows getting bigger]

There is a counter argument to that view Alister. If a pilot gets used to something like:

Brakes - off, pressure good
Undercarriage - Down and welded Ha Ha :}
Mixture - Rich

The day he starts flying an aircraft with retractable gear he may well follow the format "Gear "down and welded Ha Ha" without ever checking that is the case.

Personally, I see a significant number of student pilots following a memory checklist without actually doing the checks.

[mad_jock]

Alister as a matter of interest....

And I ain't being horrible.

What would you do if the brakes had leaked or had jammed?

[Biggles78]

Different Country I suppose but I just had to Google BUMPFITCH. As you may have guessed, I had never heard that one before. We were taught BUMP (Brakes, U/C, Mixture/Fuel Pump on (pressure plus oil guages), Pitch Full Fine) downwind or an ATC Base join. (Carb heat went on when power was retarded turning from downwind to base,
Joining checks were FMRH (Fuel fullest tank, Mixture, Radio call joining, Harness)
Just seems that BUMPFITCH is a lot to fit into a time when one is getting a tad busy.

they make a decision at an away field which frightens them and they give up or worse they kill themselves.
Plus there is the GetHomeitus disease. I have never suffered from that but so many I know have. How the hell do you train them against this?

[mad_jock]

Its not really its like all checks like that once its ingrained it gets rattled off.

If they actually do the checks properly is another issue.

How the hell do you train them against this?

By treating them like adults during there training and letting them know that they have backup at the end of a phone whenever they need advice even after they have passed the test.

The GetHomeitus I would have a hour going through some accident reports highlighting common issues.

[DFC]

What would you do if the brakes had leaked or had jammed?


It is not so mouch about what they would do - type specific and situation specific. It is more about what they would (I hope) not do - continue in the circuit to landing oblivious to the problem.

Anyone who flies anything large knows that they will receive a warning / caution of any system pressure problem. When flying something wher there is no such warning, it is prudent to make a specific check of the system that one is going to rely upon for a safe outcome to the flight.

-------------


Plus there is the GetHomeitus disease. I have never suffered from that but so many I know have. How the hell do you train them against this?


There are a number os related issues in this.

1. There should be realistic minima set and when they are set they should be complied with. Far too often we have students being taught to put a minimum level of say 4500ft on their plan because that is the minimum that complies with the organisations "1000ft above all obstacles within 10nm of the track" but the flight takes place (safely) at 2500ft with a ceiling of 3500ft. In other words schools need to have reasonable minima and stick to them.

2. Schools should issue pilots with a mini personal ops manual in which they put exactly what their minima are and how various things are done eg how to calculate minimum fuel, when an alternate is not required etc etc. Only needs to be a few sides of A6 (shirt pocket size) but can be a great reminder to the pilot and it is harder to bust a rule one is reading at the time than something simply residing in the mind.

3. Pilots must be encouraged to make their own weather decisions from a very early stage. This ensures that there is time for them tyo receive practical guidance and experience during training. which leads me to;



By treating them like adults during there training and letting them know that they have backup at the end of a phone whenever they need advice even after they have passed the test.



Nothing wrong with giving advice when asked. However, we must insist that prior to being put forward for the skill test (or even the qualifying cross country) the student can make an accurate decision based on the actual and forecast wether. None of this "discussion" with the instructor whereby it is the instructor who "helps" them make the decision. The student says "It is good enough to go" and if they are right they can go. If they are wrong, they receive remedial training and are asked to try again.

Problem with that is such a system will lead the students to be quite cautious and there will be times when they say no-go but actually it would be OK. Schools hate the idea that an aircraft could sit on the ground when it could be flying and thus the student's safe decision is overruled. - A bad example. At PPL level a cautious decision should stand.

Finally, how often do we hear "we checked the weather, obtained the taf and metars but the forecast was wrong". The Forecaster is not going along on the flight and therefore they should not be permitted to make command decisions regarding the flight.

Pilots (of all qualification levels) must themselves interpret the available data and make their own forecast. A bit more of this and we would have less of the "the metman got it worng" despite the fact that anyone looking out the window could see that weather was worse than expected.

[G-STAL]

I believe the brakes off check was valid on some older taildraggers, where the rudder authority was reduced when the brakes were applied.

The gear down check (even on fixed gear) is well worth adopting as standard - there are those that have and those that will!!

When spending 2008 doing my cpl/ir I had 5 different examiners through the course of the year; they all expected stalls to be handled in different ways ( i now ask which technique they want to see, as i've learnt them all in the last 17 years!). If they can't make their minds up -what chance do we have?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The gear down check (even on fixed gear) is well worth adopting as standard - there are those that have and those that will!!

I see this comment quite frequently and never could figure out why some pilots think this way.

Am I to understand that I will eventually land gear up because it is inevitable?

Why would anyone check the gear down if they are flying a fixed gear airplane, is it really necessary to dumb yourself down to that level?

[G-STAL]

Guess it depends on your way of thinking?

Can't hurt can it?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Guess it depends on your way of thinking?

Can't hurt can it?

True we all think differently and I try and concentrate on issues that directly affect the flight I am doing and what is necessary to do in the airplane I am flying.

If I am flying an airplane with fixed gear my own personal feeling is why waste time checking something that does not require checking?

For instance when flying an amphibian you must check gear position for the surface you are landing on, therefore it requires a specific kind of check rather than a generic type of check.

Further to the comment about pilots landing with the gear up and " there are those who have and those who will ", it must follow that when flying an amphibious airplane there are those who have landed in the water with the gear down and those who will..right?

I wonder when my turn will come as I generally fly an amphibian and that doubles my chance of landing with the wrong gear selection.

Should I quit now while I am ahead?

[DFC]

If I am flying an airplane with fixed gear my own personal feeling is why waste time checking something that does not require checking?



Yep. I bet you indeed make a concious note that this is a fixed undercarriage and I don't need to check that it is down n- just before every approach.

When flying a a retractable I bet you make a concious note to check that you have put the gear down.

No matter how your mind works, if you fly a mixture of types you will (briefly) think of the gear before every landing - even if it is to simply remember that it is fixed and does not have to be checked.

Unfortunately, the method of teaching pilots to think about the gear every time usually comes in the form of a flow / procedure which includes the gear as a simple reminder to "think about the gear".

[Chuck Ellsworth]

One can count on every word being parsed when dealing with people on the internet and once again I find myself caught in this parsing of words with a total stranger who may or may not be a pilot.


This was the comment I was replying to DFC.


The gear down check (even on fixed gear) is well worth adopting as standard - there are those that have and those that will!!

Once again when flying a fixed gear airplane I do not have a gear down check as my standard, but that is only my personal way of flying.

Seeing as you have such focused attention to detail and assuming you are a pilot can you comfort me with your expertise and opine on this?


Further to the comment about pilots landing with the gear up and " there are those who have and those who will ", it must follow that when flying an amphibious airplane there are those who have landed in the water with the gear down and those who will..right?

I wonder when my turn will come as I generally fly an amphibian and that doubles my chance of landing with the wrong gear selection.

Should I quit now while I am ahead?

Seeing as I don't use a check that references something not applicable to an airplane that I am flying at any given time does that mean my chances of landing with an incorrect gear position is increased DFC?

[Biggles78]

A good reason to check brakes OFF during downwind BUMP checks? :ok:

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/238969-home-photos-dunnunda-329.html#post5539587 - Checkout the second image!! :eek:

All the suggestions about GetHomeitus had/have been tried but once airborne and the wx worsens, the need to get home, back to work, gotta get my mate in the back/front seat "there" or I will look like a wimp, kicks in. The show Air Crash Investigator has shown it even affects airline pilots and the very recent Polish disaster, 4 approaches and a recommedation to divert, doesn't look good either. Even with the training and minimas set by the Aero Club/Flight School the disease still exists.

I come back to this "disease" because after losing my medical in 1989 it looks like I will get it back after surgery later this year and Instructing will hopefully have a position for a 53/54 year old newbie. It was a concern for me when I was doing my Instructor Rating training because we had a series of GetHomeitus attacks at that time, fortunately without any incidents apart from words with the CFI. It now reminds me of the newly licenced and young car drivers who think they can do anything and are bullet proof. Maybe continual reinforcement of minimas, their limitations and diversion practice is all one can do. :ugh:

[mad_jock]

who may or may not be a pilot.

Your not the only one who has doudt's on this front.

They obviously know a bit more than normal about ATC but I suspect they have been banned from the ATC forum for winding them up as well. Maybe a failed ATCO.

Then the flying, over the years they have been reported as being Pilot, Examiner,Test Pilot with experence on big things. But never actually says what those things are and always makes sure they don't go near the technical side of flying big things. But its way easy to catch folk out on that as the documentaion is not on line.

The posts are either on points of interpretation of legislation which quite often are quoted but the interpretation is that far from the industry norm you wonder if they have ever been in the air. Or its on principles of instructing/flying which again seem to have little or no relation to the real world but you could pick up by scouring the web for information or having a very limited exposure to flight training.

The usual flow of events are that they latch on to an issue and worry it like a dog with twisting of words and selective quoting.

As one poster said in another thread which sums the situation up very nicely

DFC you don't half talk a load of bollocks

I have had him on ignore as said for a year now. Replying to him just seems to give him a buzz and leads to days of arguing the toss which he will never give up on once he has started.

I don't think he is a Walt he has had exposure to aviation but in what capacity I do wonder. The scary thing is low hour pilots and instructors might actually go with what he says as some of the posts come across as very lucid and well argued. Its just a pity the fundemental principle that is being argued for is a load of bollocks or a twisted perversion of reality.

Anyway Chuck you carry on doing what you are doing with checking the gear, its obviously worked for the last 30 odd plus years and I suspect old dogs and new tricks comes to mind ;) (Said in a cheeky but respectful manner)

[mad_jock]

Now your thinking mate.

Whenever you have a procedure that your meant to check on something have a think about what it actually checks and what you would do if it failed the check so to speak. The more things you have a think about on the ground the less you have to think about in the air.

Yep a long runway is a good option if no brakes, full flap landing would also be good to increase your drag. Open the doors?

Brakes jammed on, can't really fix them in the air. Your idea about grass field is a good one but if that takes you away from your maint base its not a good idea. Personally I would tell ATC and if I had loads of fuel let the other circuit traffic get on the ground and get engineers ready. Then land. It wouldn't be a disaster you would land the tyre would flat spot and then blow out. You might have some directional control issues but you stop pretty quick when you have a flat. Never heard of a jam on though. A couple of indicated jam on's which were found to be indication problems. The crews ran the check lists declared and landed.

I have only had one brake failure and it was to one brake pack where the emergency shuttle valve did something which indicated we were getting brake pressure when in fact we got nothing the emergency didn't work either which was a bit of a bitch. I only had braking on one side.

Didn't half make my bum twitch at 70knts because we were on landing weight limit on the down hill runway at Plymouth. A healthy application of beta got us stopped by half way down the runway.

[DFC]

Chuck,

It is not a play with words. It is simply a fact that as an experienced pilot you will considder the position of the gear before every landing.

Just because it is not part of a defined checklist or a written procedure does not stop one from paying attention to the item before every landing.

The new student does not have the same experience to rely upon and perhaps therefore you can give us a method for giving them some form of trigger to remind them if they are flying a fixed or retractable aircraft each time they fly.

I wonder when my turn will come as I generally fly an amphibian and that doubles my chance of landing with the wrong gear selection.

If you generally fly an amphibian then conventional wisdom states that you will generally follow the normal practice for that type of aircraft. It is what you are familiar with.

If you had a club with a fixed 182 and a 182RG. Your average hirer flies 3 times per month - twice in the 182 and once in the RG. Do you think that in a high stress situation, will little available time they will tend towards the 182 techniques or the RG ones?

Or do you think that when the engine fails at 500ft (Wife and kids screaming) that there is a high probability that the pilot will lower the nose, thank God for the big grass field ahead and extend - full flap before touching down.......now which aircraft are they in that day?

-----------

It wouldn't be a disaster you would land the tyre would flat spot and then blow out. You might have some directional control issues but you stop pretty quick when you have a flat.But the brake does not act on the tire, it acts on the hub. Once the tyre blows the rim (and whatever is still attached) is still locked. Therefore "some directional control issues" would be a rather large understatement.

I would be just as concerned about the effect on the nose-wheel (tricycle) which would get quite a hard arrival (slap down at an angle) if one landed with it well up in the air not to mention the lack of any directional control with the nosewheel off the ground.

---------

MadJock,

For someone who claims to not view any of my posts you seem to have plenty to say about them. :rolleyes:

Then the flying, over the years they have been reported as being Pilot, Examiner,Test Pilot with experence on big things.Who reported that? I have never posted my status as a) My employer would not be too impressed and b) it could unfairly skew the debate and people may feel inhibited from arguing a counter view.

As for posting about bigger aircraft? Since you have selected the "ignore button" you would have no idea what I post about would you?

What do we teach instructors these days? - Hopefully not to sit with their fingers in their ears shouting at people! ;)

[Pugilistic Animus]

" This is a water landing so the gear is up" :)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

If you generally fly an amphibian then conventional wisdom states that you will generally follow the normal practice for that type of aircraft. It is what you are familiar with.

DFC you are being simplistic if not condescending.

Flying an airplane is not some dark magic that only those who understand the voodoo secrets that only those with special training and insight are able to comprehend.

If I were to take your statement seriously I would need special training and a check list to remember how to drive my car or my motorcycle home from the airport.

You are over stating the issues, is it because you yourself do not understand them?

Before you answer remember that I use my real name here and I can produce evidence that I do understand the subject of not only how to manually fly airplanes and helicopters I have an excellent track record of professional decision making ability and a flawless safety record flying for a living for over half a century.

Over to you now......:ok:

[DFC]

Flying an airplane is not some dark magic that only those who understand the voodoo secrets that only those with special training and insight are able to comprehend.

If I were to take your statement seriously I would need special training and a check list to remember how to drive my car or my motorcycle home from the airport.



Is "Mirror - Signal - Manoeuvre" a checklist? I don't think so. Simply actions that if done will assist you in safely driving home.

Unfortunately, if we were talking about an aircraft then many would incorrectly call that a checklist, within a day there would be several laminated copies and you would be moaning that the checklist is irrelevant and you don't need one to drive a car.

You shpould by now know my views on procedures, flows and checklists.

Therefore, you must be aware that I am all for having checklists as short as possible and only containing the killer items for that aircraft.

Having said that, instructors have to adapt to the general situati0n when teaching people to fly. Therefore, in 90% of the world, it has been common practice to have pilots take the position of the undercarriage into account before every landing regardless of type of aeroplane.

Until someone comes up with a better fail safe solution we are unfortunately stuck with what we have.

The failings that many who object to this system complain about relate to the running of procedures / flows parrot fashon without any actual action on the part of the pilot and then not using a checklist to confirm.

This is where the failings are - the "undercarriage down" action is simply a distraction from the root cause.

Lets look at something a bit less contentious - the well known FREDAI;

F - Fuel
R - Radio
E - Engine
D - Direction
A - Altimeter
I - Icing

Are you saying that we should not teach that from PPL day 1 all the way through to CPL/ME/IR?

Are you saying that when flying a non-radio aircraft with electrical (always on carb heat) we must use FEDA? I think that you are because after all the crux of your argument is that if the pilot checks the non-existant radio in one aircraft they will not check the radio in the aircraft that has one?

Is that a checklist, a procedure or flow?

What about this - PLANTT

P - Pitot Heat
L - Lights
A - Altitudes
N - Navigation
T - Transponder
T - Time

are you saying that is OK for the IFR C182 but that when that pilot hops into a Microlight they have to change that to ANT?

Do you not see that much of what you are asking for is causing an overcomplication rather than the desired simplification?

[flythisway]

DFC-have to say you are the only person who seems like an instructor on here!

This is a classic

Before you answer remember that I use my real name here and I can produce evidence that I do understand the subject of not only how to manually fly airplanes and helicopters I have an excellent track record of professional decision making ability and a flawless safety record flying for a living for over half a century.

How do you know you have an excellent track record--and as for a flawless safety record, what difference does that make? I suppose the KLM Chief Pilot, who caused the worlds worst air disaster would have said much of the same just before impact too!

[Dave Unwin]

Have to say I'm totally with Chuck on this. Having flown a few different types, including amphibs, I'd simply say "fly the aircraft you're flying".

[mad_jock]

Nah chuck is quite well know around the world for his amphibian training.

There are not many about that can do training on Catalinas.

Never managed to meet him face to face but he is pretty well known up north from ferrying aircraft across the pond.

Well if DFC seems to be the only instructor on here gawd help the aviation industry.

From who I can see in the replys we have several PPL examiners a couple of TRE's, FI's galore a couple of PPL's, a student and DFC who talks bollocks for most of the time to provoke an argument.

So if your looking for an instructor to teach you how to talk bollocks about flying I think you can't get better than DFC.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

How do you know you have an excellent track record--


By examining my past flying record.

and as for a flawless safety record, what difference does that make?

Let me turn the question around and ask you one.

The next time you get in an airplane to fly somewhere as a passenger will it make any difference to you if the pilot flying you has over half a century of safe flying without wrecking anything, or a pilot who has a long history of accidents?

DFC-have to say you are the only person who seems like an instructor on here!

Fortunately there are others who are flight instructors on this forum flythisway, in fact I received my first instructors rating in 1958.

You must bear in mind that different instructors present information in different manners......I tend not to be an acronym slave and prefer to use logic and observation as a means of ensuring I am making the correct decisions and carrying out the correct actions at a given time.

Note:

I am not saying that following proper check lists is not necessary, what I am saying is check lists should reflect the aircraft POH / AFM and not be cluttered up with unnecessary actions such as checking the gear is down on a fixed gear aircraft......that to my way of thinking is poor airmanship.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I must confess I have never heard of these two acronyms.

FREDAI

PLANTT

Had someone put them in front of me I would not have had a clue what they stood for.

[Say again s l o w l y]

You're not missing much Chuck, that I can assure you.

Are you suggesting that people should read and understand the Flight Manual before they fly Chuck? Coo, there are some people (who are dearly in need of a kick in the pods obviously) who would suggest that as heresy.
Well, given the nonsense I see promulgated as fact by some FI's that's the only conclusion I can come to.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Have to say I'm totally with Chuck on this. Having flown a few different types, including amphibs, I'd simply say "fly the aircraft you're flying".

:D

http://www.pprune.org/5354842-post12.html

just to show I'm not agreeing for convenience:}

C'mon folks we all do OK for ourselves,..No?:)

[DFC]

I tend not to be an acronym slave and prefer to use logic and observation as a means of ensuring I am making the correct decisions and carrying out the correct actions at a given time.


I have said this to you before Chuck, it is not about you. It is about the student. What you (or I) do when flying is a totally different situation from what the student learning a new skill in a new environment will do.

You seems to be ignoring the fact that we are not talking about checklists.

Let mje try for the last time to explain it to you.

FREDA and similar acronyms are not checks. They are procedures / flows.

At many levels it makes sense where possible to have common procedures that are easily remembered, well understood and in common use.

Lets look at a very typical example of not slavishly following the idea of ""fly the aircraft you're flying".

Big Airline operates B737, A320 and several other types. They have a company wide Noise Abatement Procedure - Maximum Thrust and TO Flap to 1500ft AAL, Maximum Continuous Thrust and TO Flap to 3000ft AAL then accelerate and clean-up.

Not all airports will have a noise abatement restriction. However, in the interest of standardisation and safety, the company insists that the Noise abatement departure is flown in all cases unless safety gives the pilot a reason not to.

If the first level-off is 2500ft do they accelerate and retract the flap. No. Putting a random element into the scenario is opening up the posibility of a distraction and the flap limit speed being exceeded.

Of course that would never happen to you. But it happens to plenty of operators who don't have a cast iron system in place to prevent flap overspeeds during departure.

Getting back to checks. If one is flying a C150 in a club environment there will hopefully be a reasonably standard procedure to configure the aircraft for landing. But what should the checklist be? I can only think of 2 items - Mixture and Security - but that is the checklist and not the procedure.

I have provided training for many people who learned to fly on and and lots of experience on C152 and C172 aircraft (they always checked the gear) and then were moving onto a type such as the PA-28-R (Arrow).

Guess what - they never forgot the Gear. They did frequently however forget the Fuel Pump. They forget to turn it off after departure and they forget to turn it on before landing. Yes the pre-landing checklist caught it but the point is that they have been doing it one way for 150 hours and we don't have another 150 hours practice for them to get it right.

So please don't base the training of a student on what you (with your experience) do but rather develop a system that will ensure that the student can cope and can safely progress with the minimum fuss............unless of course you insist that every student reaches your level of experience and ability in 45 hours or less.

[Dave Unwin]

Using your argument about checking the C150s undercarriage (even though its fixed) why don't you also train them to turn the C150s fuel pump on/off - even though it doesn't have one.
As for your airline analogy - I hardly know where to begin.
Fly the thing you're flying! If its got a retract U/C, fuel pump, cowl flaps etc etc use them as required. If it doesn't - well, it doesn't.

[DFC]

Using your argument about checking the C150s undercarriage


I have never argued that the Checklist should include a check of the undercarriage on fixed gear aircraft.

What I have argued is that where an individual or club operates a mixture of types it makes sense in safety terms to have reasonably standard actions during various stages of flight.

Ultimately, the landing checklist for the C150 could have no items. After all, what is there to check for the competent pilot?

But,

I think that even if you decided that the Pre-Landing Checklist was "Nil" you would still expect several things to be done before landing eg Check Carb Heat / Clear any Ice etc etc etc

Let me Quote Mr Cessna;

" Section I lists in Pilot's Check List form, the steps necessary to operate your airplane efficiently and safely. It is not a check list in its true form as it is considerably longer, but it does cover briefly all of the points that you should know for a typical flight."

So even Mr Cessna is hoping that the pilot will not simply rely on the laminated checklist (which should be very brief) but will also cover all the points that you should know for a typical flight.

You will notice that I previously used FREADI as an example.

Note that I did not expand on each item. I did not because each item is something to be considered rather than a required action.

For example F - Fuel : Contents, Tank Selection, Pump (if you have one) On or Off, Fuel Pressure, Mixture, Expected amount remaining at Destination....are all things that come under that simple heading. Some may not be applicable today (or this hour) but they may be tomorrow or during the next hour in a different aircraft.

There is nothing wrong with something being considered during flight and it being determined to be "not applicable".

What is wrong (and potentialy dangerous) is to open up the posibility that an important item could be overlooked / forgotten.

Considering something, actioning something and checking something are all things that can be done without a checklist. the checklist is simply a final catcher after you think everything is done.

So again I say. I am not in favour or a checklist having non-applicable or unnecessary items eg Gear on a fixed aircraft but when talking about GA light aircraft I am infavour of keeping things simple and where possible having simple basic actions / considerations for each phase of flight which don't change from aircraft to aircraft.

Many commercial operators limit the number of types that a pilot can fly (EU-Ops has a requirement). We can't do the same with GA PPL / recreational fliers.

Still waiting for someone to come up with a simpler option.

[Dave Unwin]

Pure semantics. You have consistently proposed - have you not - that a pilot should confirm the position of the U/C, even if it is fixed. Surely (applying your own logic) the same pilot should also consider the props, fuel pumps, cowl flaps, oil cooler doors, leading edge slats, airbrakes, spoilers, drag chute, water rudder, yaw damper, autopilot, water injection, supercharger, afterburner, etc etc. After all, the next aircraft that pilot flies may well have fuel pumps, cowl flaps, oil cooler doors, leading edge slats, airbrakes, spoilers, drag chute, water rudder, water injection, supercharger or even an afterburner. Or, it might not.

[Dave Unwin]

Oooops. Sorry everyone - I forgot to mention the thrust reversers, Master Armament Switch, JATO selector and bomb bay doors. Which was a mistake, as I flew an aircraft in January which did indeed include 'Close Bomb Bay Doors' as part of the after-start checklist! Honestly, what am I like?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Word salading is not really one of my passions DFC, especially with an unknown entity on the internet.

I appreciate the time you take to try and enlighten me in the finer points of how to teach people how to think about a flight they are about to set out on.

However I am afraid you are truly wasting your time if you are expecting me to change my ways and adopt your view of how to teach flying.

I have not taught ab-initio flying since 1964 and I will admit time can dim ones memory but the basics have remained with me as I went on from teaching at the PPL level to teaching agricultural flying and from there to company training pilot on heavy water bombers for twelve years. Later in my career I started a business offering advanced flight training and as part of the business I went back to light aircraft again therefore I hope I understand the issues involved in how to teach people to fly.

I am quite sure you and I will remain at odds on this subject regardless of how much bandwith we waste here playing one upmanship, so lets just end our discussion at this point as there is really nothing much more to say.

[Pugilistic Animus]

READ AND USE THE



---------------------POH/AFM!!!------------------




OR RELEVANT SUPPLEMENTS
:ugh:

[mad_jock]

One from the S turns thread.

Apparently some consider sideslip as highly dangerous and bad practise

[Pugilistic Animus]

Sides slips are stressful, literally and,...for croswind initial approach it looks cheap and it is not natural but artificial,...good for getting into tight spaces with engine failure,..and keeping away the flames during an emergency descent:)

[Say again s l o w l y]

Oh God, the sideslip argument...

Numpty: "You can't do sideslip, you'll spin and die"

Me: "Start running, you've got 10 seconds until I release the hounds. They are particularly fond of stupid people, so you'd better be quick."

[Bob Stinger]

Sideslips are not generally taught in the PPL syllabus nowadays so this in my opinion leads the younger FI unsure of how to teach them resulting in the "we cant do them because there dangerous/scary etc argument", as a new FI I made sure on my FI course that I was taught how to teach them.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Generally not taught on the PPL? Please tell me you are joking or misinformed.

Why do you need to be taught how to teach a sideslip? It's not as if it's a complex aerobatic routine. It's a very simple and basic manouever, that anyone should be able to do.

No teaching of sideslip...I truly am speechless.

[Piper.Classique]

Generally not taught on the PPL? Please tell me you are joking or misinformed.I wish he were. I have encountered many pilots unable or unwilling to use a sideslip, including instructors. May be different in the UK, and I hope it is, but here in France one of our club aeroplane instructors will reluctantly admit that I can sideslip if I want to, but not if he is on board. The other doesn't mind, but doesn't teach it to his students. I instruct on three axis microlights, and my students learn sideslips, straight and in a turn. Oh, and s turns, and anything else likely to help in the event of an engine failure or a Bu**ered approach where no go-round is possible. Quite a lot of hill sites for example.

[Centaurus]

Lets look at something a bit less contentious - the well known FREDAI;


Well known? I checked the ICAO glossary - strange...nothing there. Checked all the various Flight manuals, Flight crew Training Manuals - strange...nothing there, either.

I once saw a checklist mnemonic but I forget for what aeroplane. It was called My Friend Fred Had Hairy Balls or MFFHHB but was never quite sure what each letter stood for. Let's see now:

M for Mixture (or maybe even Magnetos or maybe Master Switch?)
F for Fuel (or maybe Flaps or maybe even check for FIRE).
F for (see above)
H for Hatches (or maybe Hydraulics or even Harness)
H for (see above)
B for Brakes?

Nmemonics only make sense to the person that invented them and should never be foisted upon other unsuspecting hapless individuals. Stick to the manufacturer's manual for the drills required of their aircraft only.

Of course mnemonics are good fun to invent but seriously, they are a bit, like, amateur, don't you agree?:ok:

[BillieBob]

Sometimes Fred, sometimes Flicka after the horse in the 1950s TV show, and applied to the Chipmunk: Mixture, Fuel, Flaps, Hood, Harness, Brakes.

Oh, and I recall an FE's conference some years ago where sideslipping on finals was described by a CAA staff FE as "The last resort of a scoundrel". Where do they find these people?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Oh, and I recall an FE's conference some years ago where sideslipping on finals was described by a CAA staff FE as "The last resort of a scoundrel". Where do they find these people?

Is the above even possible?, I know there are neuron deficient people in positions of power but how is it possible that one with no neurons slipped in?

Lets look at something a bit less contentious - the well known FREDAI;

I'm relieved to see I am not the only one who has never heard of that well known acronym....like I said above where do these things come from???:sad::sad:

[Say again s l o w l y]

I think the use of these acronymns comes from the dark days of WW2, especially from the ATA pilots. They would often fly many different types, with very little training, so came up with basic checks that would get them by in anything.

Whether the use of these things is still appropriate, especially in a training environment on a single type, is debateable. I can see some use, but there is nothing that can beat knowing your aircraft properly, rather than relying on systems that will just get you by.

[Intercepted]

The "FREDA Check" is one of most annoying things invented.

I'm one of those pilots that do those checks evenly over time and only if needed.

Unfortunately some instructors think its bad airmanship to not say out loud "I will do a FREDA check now" and then walk through each step mechanically while you loudly declare each step.... "Radio Set to Farnborough" (Yes I f*ing know its set to farnborough, and it will stay like that for the rest of this flight).