HOW TO FLY?

[Manwell]

Mark Twain said something decades ago that will live forever - "It ain't what we don't know that gets us into trouble, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so."

Just for the fun of it, let's imagine the possibilities if we thought differently, and therefore, did things differently.

To begin, let's assume that the way we've all been taught is fatally flawed, that all accidents are preventable, and the only reason they happen is because pilots lose control. We could argue that some accidents are not due to pilot error, but the deeper I've look into the root causes of accidents, the more convinced I became that there was always something the pilot could have done to avert disaster, at least if the accident wasn't prevented, any damage could have been minimized.

It seems to me that the key to achieving ultimate safety stems from taking responsibility for everything that happens, which then enables the pilot to take command and change things in his favour.

To teach someone how to fly, it's important that the instructor knows how to fly themselves. But what if how we're taught was, and still is flawed, which leads us to teach others the same way, because it's all we know? What if there's at least something we think we know for sure, that just ain't so, and that's why pilots still allow accidents to happen?

To correct any potential flaws in our training, it's necessary to first forget everything we thought we knew, and prove everything from first principles.

Before we launch into a potentially risky exercise, we'll do some checks to make sure we've considered every risk. First, we're on the ground and only talking about flying, so there's no risk there. Next, what's the worst that can happen? We might learn something that makes us less safe... Possible, but not likely unless we're incapable of discerning potential risk. Pilots should have well-developed skills in that regard. What's the best that can happen? We might learn something useful. Unlikely, I'm sure, but what's the risk of that happening?

Okay. Checks complete. Anyone interested in hopping aboard? I guarantee it will be a ride you'll never forget... ;)

[Ascend Charlie]

"Going back to first principles" ..... does that include reading text books?

Because the FAA text on flying helicopters is riddled with errors and misleading statements. Huge numbers of FAA-trained pilots emerge from their licence test with totally the wrong concept of what is keeping them in the air. Then they immediately get their instructor rating and teach the same errors to the next generation.

Your blurb is well-intentioned but is a little bit of pie floating around in the sky, looking for somewhere to crash. As you said, the safest place is on the ground, talking about flying.

[B2N2]

Flying is not inherently dangerous, people are....


-Anonymous

Eventually 99% is human error, mostly on the pilot side.
The remainder is maintenance errors, lackadaisical attitudes on the part of ATC, refuelers, rampers, examiners and even (human) design flaws.
All accidents are a chain of events and components with causal effects and some accidents are years in the making before all the links connect.

The Teterboro Learjet crash being a perfect example of all the ingredients of an accident.
At any time any link could have been broken and the accident would not have occurred.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/multiple-errors-contributed-to-fatal-teterboro-lea-456614/

[Whopity]

To correct any potential flaws in our training, it's necessary to first forget everything we thought we knew, and prove everything from first principles.
In the entire history of aviation, nobody has ever sat down and worked out what a pilot needs to know! Regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

Take a look at the current theoretical exams for a commercial pilot, mostly junk. I recall one school recently complaing that a PPL student, who was exempt the Theoretical Knowledge because he had passed the ATPL exams, didn't have enough knowledge to pass the school's aural test!

[MrAverage]

i thought a PPL was required before the ATPL writtens could be taken?

[B2N2]

Aural test?

[Whopity]

i thought a PPL was required before the ATPL writtens could be taken?
So did I but it seems some have managed to take the exams without a PPL
Aural test?
Dyslexic moment Oral

[Parson]

I've flown with over 30 different instructors and I couldn't say there is a 'standard way' to fly based what they have taught me and the knowledge imparted.

In my simple mind, flight = power + pitch. Every else can vary. Of course there are a myraid of checks and procedures depending on what machine you are flying and what you are using it for. But get power & pitch right and you won't go far wrong.

[rarelyathome]

Performance = Power + Pitch. Flight is more about Lift equalling or exceeding weight.

[Parson]

The science/mechanics of flight does but I thought the question was to 'how to fly', not 'how an aircraft flies'.

[rarelyathome]

I was referring to your statement that flight = power + pitch
Flying an aircraft is the easy bit, your power and pitch if you like. The hard bit, that where there needs to be much more improvement, is operating the aircraft - planning, navigating, situational awareness, communicating, decision making, good old fashioned airmanship as well as TEM.

[foxmoth]

In the entire history of aviation, nobody has ever sat down and worked out what a pilot needs to know! Regardless of whether it is right or wrong.!

Actually I think this was done by Smith Barry, not saying he got it right, but I think he set down what most instructors use these days and at least it was an advance on what there was before and it is not his fault that this has not been surpassed, rather a credit to how right he got it!

[Manwell]

Actually I think this was done by Smith Barry, not saying he got it right, but I think he set down what most instructors use these days and at least it was an advance on what there was before and it is not his fault that this has not been surpassed, rather a credit to how right he got it!

I'd suggest that it's not a case of how right he got it, but that no-one has been allowed to challenge established thinking foxmoth. Training standards are universally accepted by every country, and none dare to change them because that's the nature of bureaucracies. They're there for a long time, not a good time, and wouldn't risk changing things that might do them out of a job. In fact, their goal is usually to justify more jobs for bureaucrats, not less.

In response to BN2, the proportion of accidents resulting from pilot error is no less than 100%. Whether it's a maintenance fault or something else that initiated the failure, the buck stops with the captain, and he either should have identified the fault pre-flight or in flight before it failed, or had prepared skills and knowledge to handle any unexpected, unannounced, unpredictable failures, of which there are very few.

In response to rarely and others, the equation I learned was Power + Attitude = Performance. There it is in a nutshell. How to Fly. Control Power & Attitude - and I do mean control. Total control of attitude mostly is the key. Control of pitch, roll, and yaw, even when adjusting power from idle to max. That's all there is to it. But it's not as simple as it seems... Very few know how to fly because they never learned how to control attitude to the extent that they could never lose control.

[Ascend Charlie]

In response to BN2, the proportion of accidents resulting from pilot error is no less than 100%. Whether it's a maintenance fault or something else that initiated the failure, the buck stops with the captain, and he either should have identified the fault pre-flight or in flight before it failed, or had prepared skills and knowledge to handle any unexpected, unannounced, unpredictable failures, of which there are very few.

Dunno why this thread has split in two.

Manwell, your statement is absolute horsefeathers. Please enlighten us on the very few failures for which a captain is allowed to be unprepared. Then we can re-work the syllabus.

[Manwell]

Manwell, your statement is absolute horsefeathers. Please enlighten us on the very few failures for which a captain is allowed to be unprepared. Then we can re-work the syllabus.

AC, my statement is the only way for a Pilot in Command to think. Didn't you read what I said? 100% responsibility means there are no known failures for which a captain is allowed to be unprepared. He'd be excused for not preparing for unknown failures, but if he knows his aircraft and knows himself, he has nothing to fear. Failing to know himself is the main causal factor. Otherwise known as folly, delusion, arrogance, ignorance, etc.

[jonkster]

So we need to train people so they can handle every feasible contingency, without error? And we need to teach sound skills in the "power + attude = performance" framework and you contend that is not something current training does? Am I understanding your philosophy correctly?

[timprice]

Just explain how a bubble bee fly's that's all I need to know:{

[Ascend Charlie]

So, in Manwell's flying school, nobody goes solo until they have mastered every unexpected, unannounced and unpredictable failure, because that's what he reckons a captain must be able to do. Somewhere around 10,000 hours by the look of it, as a lot of failures are totally unpredictable. That only leaves the "unknown" failures that might catch him out.

Horsefeathers.

[Manwell]

So we need to train people so they can handle every feasible contingency, without error? And we need to teach sound skills in the "power + attude = performance" framework and you contend that is not something current training does? Am I understanding your philosophy correctly?

Not quite jonkster. It's obviously not practical to cover every possible contingency, but it is practical and possible to teach people how to control power and attitude, and instil in them a passion for knowledge about their machine, and themselves. Yes, the contention is that currently, training doesn't teach the basics properly. By overloading the student with too much information during initial training that doesn't demonstrably contribute to either safety or efficiency, both safety and efficiency are compromised. The classic example of this is when a pilot forgets to fly the aircraft in an emergency, focusing instead on a wide variety of compelling distractions that would have been drummed into him by his instructor.

[Manwell]

So, in Manwell's flying school, nobody goes solo until they have mastered every unexpected, unannounced and unpredictable failure, because that's what he reckons a captain must be able to do. Somewhere around 10,000 hours by the look of it, as a lot of failures are totally unpredictable. That only leaves the "unknown" failures that might catch him out.

Horsefeathers.

I do appreciate your scepticism AC. If you can't win an argument with logic nowadays, it's commonplace for people to resort to ad hominem attacks, or reductio ad absurdum rhetoric. Both are an expression of fear, and fear is just one emotion that must be controlled by anyone who dares to tempt the hunter - fate. By that response, I take it you aren't in command of either your aircraft, or your self, and that is definitely cause for alarm. The idea that "a lot of failures are totally unpredictable" is a comforting excuse for pilots as they walk away from a smoking wreck, but it's simply not true. Maybe it is in your mind, but if that's the case your mind isn't aligned with reality. Modern aircraft have made it easier for deluded pilots to survive, and pretty soon they'll be able to throw any damn fool in a cockpit and let the automatics "fly" instead. And they will call it progress...

[Ascend Charlie]

The idea that "a lot of failures are totally unpredictable" is a comforting excuse for pilots as they walk away from a smoking wreck, but it's simply not true.

OK Manwell, let's look at this scenario from a real accident in 1975. A Chinook is carrying an external load on a training exercise.
One engine lets go in an impressive manner, with a turbine wheel leaping out of its engine, ripping through the tower, taking out the hydraulics and electrics, and lodging in the other engine, causing a huge reduction in power. They are going down, no way to stay up.
Pilot tries to pickle the load, but with no power cannot do so.
Loadmaster scrambles to get to the manual release, but slips in the hydraulic fluid gushing into the rear cabin and cannot get to it. They cannot drop the load.
Pilot manages to just fly the aircraft onto the ground straight ahead, having to land on the external load along the way.
Fortunately for them, the load, which is usually a semi-trainer, was 3 rubber bladders of water, which squished and absorbed the impact.
As the rotor RPM decayed, the rear blades started chopping through the cabin roof, as the tilt mechanism, powered by electrics, was still in full forward mode.
Luckily, nobody was injured.

What part of that accident was predictable to you?

And your trail of logic is a little off-track, accusing me of being scared and out of control, simply because I question your bold statement that everything is predictable. Definitely not scared of declaring your thread as a load of horsefeathers.

[Ascend Charlie]

And I would really like to know how long it would take a student of yours to reach a solo standard. All those unforeseeable events.

When I did my training, we were taught the basics of flying, plus how to do touchdown autos, hydraulics-off run-on landings, and manual fuel ops (for when the auto governor gave up), as these were the foreseeable and statistically most likely things to go wrong with a Huey. And with 11 hours of dual, all my course went solo.

Further training then covered the less-likely failure modes, up until graduation with 120 hrs and qualified on turbines, general flying, low level, instrument rating, night VFR rating, formation endorsement, sling loads and hoist ops. And since then I have not had a single serious failure. All that has been thrown at me was a high-side N2 runaway in a BK117.

[Manwell]

OK Manwell, let's look at this scenario from a real accident in 1975. A Chinook is carrying an external load on a training exercise.
..... What part of that accident was predictable to you?


My apologies AC, looking back over the posts I've missed an important piece of the puzzle.

At the start I did say a pilot could predict most failures, but not all, and didn't elaborate on that sufficiently. In fact I amplified that error in another response to you. Please forgive that slip of consciousness.

As you rightly suggested, the accident above is possibly an example of one of those very few unpredictable failures, but without additional information, we can't be certain. For example, did the machine provide a subtle clue to it's impending explosion, an unexplained vibration perhaps? Let's accept for a moment that it was unannounced, and these events do occur occasionally, then pilot skill and knowledge is necessary to minimize damage to craft and crew. That's the bit I missed, and it was a silly omission, but it happened and we didn't die so hopefully, we can all learn from it.

Your question about time to solo is irrelevant in the bigger picture, because the focus is on the safe and efficient operation of an aircraft, both in the air and on the ground - and I'm sure you've heard that before. If it takes an extra hour or even ten to solo, it's worth it if the pilot knows how to fly well enough to be able to control power + attitude. This was one of the hurdles I had to get over too before it's real significance became apparent, so I'm not surprised an ex-military man would place almost religious significance on time to solo. I certainly did. Ironically, the time taken to solo may or may not increase, depending on how much learning has to be undone. Additionally, the investment of a few extra hours in the ab initio phase will pay back much bigger returns in the longer run. Imagine the benefit of knowing how to fly before nav, night, IF, low level, and formation aerobatics training. By that, I mean knowing how to fly instinctively, without over-reliance on instruments. In fact, aircraft can be flown safely without any instruments at all if the pilot knows how to fly.

[Ascend Charlie]

Manwell, I wasn't putting too much emphasis on "time to solo", my point was that the course, before solo, only looked at the three emergencies which a student might be expected to handle.

Your suggestion of a captain being able to cope with almost ANY emergency would lengthen any pilot's course of training, and delay the solo phase to a detrimental degree. Solo time is important for consolidation of training and building confidence in one's skills. If it doesn't happen until 40 or 50 hours of non-stop emergencies, your course looks a little overly inwards-looking.

In addition to Power+Attitude (in Balance) = Performance, you also need to add "TRIM OR FAIL!" for the plank drivers.

[jonkster]

Not quite jonkster. It's obviously not practical to cover every possible contingency, but it is practical and possible to teach people how to control power and attitude, and instil in them a passion for knowledge about their machine, and themselves. Yes, the contention is that currently, training doesn't teach the basics properly. By overloading the student with too much information during initial training that doesn't demonstrably contribute to either safety or efficiency, both safety and efficiency are compromised. The classic example of this is when a pilot forgets to fly the aircraft in an emergency, focusing instead on a wide variety of compelling distractions that would have been drummed into him by his instructor.

so we need to teach them good stick and rudder skills, prepare them for the most likely contigencies and to avoid overwhelming them in their early training with information but instead tailor it to their stage of progress? And encourage them to learn more about their aircraft and its systems , airmanship and aviation in general?

if so, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Reckon that is an ideal most would aspire to. Not sure it is a revolutionary idea though but do acknowledge it isn't always done well.

In terms of what I do badly in instructing, I suspect that many of the issues pilots really come unstuck over are often human factors rather than pure stick skill deficiences and teaching people and organisations how to operate to avoid the issues human factors throw at us is actually the thing we do quite badly as instructors (and organisations and regulators), not because we don't care or try but mostly because I don't think we as humans know how to best train people not behave as humans, or we think that if people are alerted to human factor issues they will not fall trap to them.

Tell me how we can better teach that area and that would be revolutionary.

[BEagle]

Rarely have I read such UTTER nonsense as posted on this thread by Manwell!

I sincerely hope that no real flight instructors will bother with such obvious garbage.

[markkal]

Rarely have I read such UTTER nonsense as posted on this thread by Manwell!

I sincerely hope that no real flight instructors will bother with such obvious garbage.

As far as the ability to fly without looking at instruments is concerned, in VFR and with a GA aircraft, if makes absolute sense.
By setting the right power parameters for a given flight attitude to nail a precise speed, any pilot who reached a satisfactory level of proficiency should really be able to fly a circuit from TO to LDG without looking at the IAS.

I am not sure that even a great number of instructors would be able to do that today.

The Garmin G500 or G1000 these wonderful tools are often misused ang grab pilot attention to try and keep the vertical and horizontal path when they should look out of the window, chasing speed and heading continously; About the flight parameters (power settings in MAP or RPM + attitude for any speed) Virtually nobody I know uses them, except maybe to stabilise cruise when its time to reduce power..And then so often the wrong use of trim comes up.

Correct parameters for a stable final approach, idem, no mental awareness of the aiming point and touchdown always way to much speed, we are talking here about absolute basics that are not properly instilled...Then we wonder "How to fly"

[Manwell]

so we need to teach them good stick and rudder skills, prepare them for the most likely contigencies and to avoid overwhelming them in their early training with information but instead tailor it to their stage of progress? And encourage them to learn more about their aircraft and its systems , airmanship and aviation in general?

if so, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Reckon that is an ideal most would aspire to. Not sure it is a revolutionary idea though but do acknowledge it isn't always done well.

In terms of what I do badly in instructing, I suspect that many of the issues pilots really come unstuck over are often human factors rather than pure stick skill deficiences and teaching people and organisations how to operate to avoid the issues human factors throw at us is actually the thing we do quite badly as instructors (and organisations and regulators), not because we don't care or try but mostly because I don't think we as humans know how to best train people not behave as humans, or we think that if people are alerted to human factor issues they will not fall trap to them.

Tell me how we can better teach that area and that would be revolutionary.

Thank-you for that reasoned response jonkster. You're right about the basics, but when I say the basics, I really mean the basics. If the foundation isn't sound, nothing built above will last.
What's revolutionary about it is how those basics are taught, and what specifically isn't taught because it doesn't correspond to the appropriate level on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs at that particular time. In simpler terms, the most important skills a pilot needs in the ab initio phase is how to control attitude, in pitch, roll, and yaw, plus power, because it satisfies their need for security. That's all.

By allowing the student to repetitively practice each element of power control, for example, while preventing any and all secondary effects without the instructor continually interrupting, and only interrupting after he's repeated the same mistake a few times, then demonstrating correct technique once while explaining why his attempt isn't working, before allowing him to continually repeat the exercise in rapid succession again. The idea is for the student to spend the most time manipulating controls, not the instructor, but not so much he doesn't know correct technique.

After those fundamental foundations are laid properly, each successive element is taught and repetitively practice in rapid succession until the technique is established in muscle memory, and the visual, aural, and other sensory signals are correlated in short term memory, which will transfer to long term memory as training progresses by ensuring each control element is performed so it looks the same way each time without requiring reference to instruments at all. No other information is included until the student has those foundations established, exactly as the priorities are listed. Aviate - Navigate - Communicate. Once the pilot is capable of controlling the aircraft in pitch, roll, yaw, and power, that satisfies the basic need for security in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, enabling him to more easily focus on achieving higher levels by applying those basic skills. Obviously, there's more to it than this, but that is an outline of the methodology that is repeated each time a new skill is taught.

Your comments about Human Factors are excellent. Specifically, this bit, "I don't think we as humans know how to best train people not behave as humans". Man, I could go on for hours about Human Factors, but here's the executive summary relative to that comment - Our goal isn't to train people how not to behave as humans, rather, to acknowledge our strengths and weaknesses, and capitalize on our strengths first, before strengthening our weaknesses. People know how to use their senses already, so let them use those to learn how to control power and attitude first, before complicating things. Get the picture?

[Ascend Charlie]

Manwell, all you are saying is basic IT, which every mil instructor has had drilled into them:

Demo
Direct
Monitor
Re-demo when needed
Monitor

The old adage of Power + Attitude (in balance) = Performance isn't worth Jack if the dopey student isn't critical enough to see that the performance isn't what is required, and the attitude or power or balance needs to be adjusted.

[Manwell]

Manwell, all you are saying is basic IT, which every mil instructor has had drilled into them:

Demo
Direct
Monitor
Re-demo when needed
Monitor

The old adage of Power + Attitude (in balance) = Performance isn't worth Jack if the dopey student isn't critical enough to see that the performance isn't what is required, and the attitude or power or balance needs to be adjusted.

You've highlighted the problem clearly AC. We don't think the way we've been doing it for decades is the problem, so we just keep doing the same thing hoping for a different result. To be fair, this training philosophy doesn't magically allow a dodo to fly, and neither should it, but at least it doesn't pretend they can. You've also conveniently overlooked the bits that you couldn't fault, rather than seeing it as an integrated package. The first step to learning something new is to forget all we thought we knew, and go back to first principles. It wasn't easy for me to swallow my pride either, but I did, and you can too.

Looking at your last comment above, made me recall something important. What if the dopey student isn't able to see that the performance isn't as required because the even dopier instructor doesn't know how to teach?

[Ascend Charlie]

the even dopier instructor doesn't know how to teach?

A common problem in the US where the instructor only has 100 hrs more than Bloggs. At least here, he should have 400 hrs more, which is a start, but 1000hrs is even better, to pass on some experience.

[Manwell]

A common problem in the US where the instructor only has 100 hrs more than Bloggs. At least here, he should have 400 hrs more, which is a start, but 1000hrs is even better, to pass on some experience.

Agreed AC, the way it was traditionally done was for the elders to teach the newbies, while the ones in the middle gained experience. Imagine if the people teaching our kids in schools were those who really knew what worked, instead of being gullible enough to think bureaucrats who will never experience the folly of their methods know better?

BTW, knowing how to fly and knowing how to teach it are two separate things. Logically, younger pilots whose sights are set on building hours to snare a cosy seat in the front of an airliner, won't be much inclined to focus instead on the needs of their students.

[Big Pistons Forever]

fly a circuit from TO to LDG without looking at the IAS.

My last 7 students were all flight instructor courses. I did that with all of them and not one had ever done one before and all were all rather freaked out. Of course it's not very hard. The funniest one was my weakest student. We were on final and I could see he was really nervous without the ASI crutch so I asked him what he thought was the airspeed was. The very tentative reply was "65 kts I think" so I took the cover off the ASI and the needle was EXACTLY pointing at 65. I thought the expression of "jaw dropping" was just a saying but that day I saw it actually happen.

Anyway every student I ever taught including the PPL's got this exercise and for strong students I would cover up the altimeter too. Students could stay usually within 50 feet of the standard downwind altitude just by looking at the ground

[Manwell]

My last 7 students were all flight instructor courses. I did that with all of them and not one had ever done one before and all were all rather freaked out. Of course it's not very hard. The funniest one was my weakest student. We were on final and I could see he was really nervous without the ASI crutch so I asked him what he thought was the airspeed was. The very tentative reply was "65 kts I think" so I took the cover off the ASI and the needle was EXACTLY pointing at 65. I thought the expression of "jaw dropping" was just a saying but that day I saw it actually happen.

Anyway every student I ever taught including the PPL's got this exercise and for strong students I would cover up the altimeter too. Students could stay usually within 50 feet of the standard downwind altitude just by looking at the ground

Big Pistons, your experience is exactly the phenomenon I'm alluding to. Our capacity to fly accurately is enhanced by reducing reliance on technology designed to help us, and we achieve that by utilizing all sensory capacity, rather than using just one aimed at instruments. Experiences such as this have expanded my understanding of human factors, which has far more potential benefits than we are ever allowed to believe is possible.