HOW TO FLY?

[Manwell]

If anyone's interested I'd like to see if I can teach you how to fly. This may seem an odd subject for the instructors and examiners forum, but if anyone's interested in testing established thinking about how to fly, I'd be happy to challenge everything we think we know about flying, just for the fun of it. With a bit of luck, you may just learn how to fly, or confirm that you already do....

[Atlas Shrugged]

I'd be happy to challenge everything we think we know about flying, just for the fun of it.

WTF???????

This idea has no place whatsoever in, on or around any aircraft or indeed aviation and would most likely have anyone with even a modicum of intelligence running very quickly in the opposite direction!

Sounds like a YouTube video in the making..... a dumb idea!

[Manwell]

WTF???????

This idea has no place whatsoever in, on or around any aircraft or indeed aviation and would most likely have anyone with even a modicum of intelligence running very quickly in the opposite direction!

Sounds like a YouTube video in the making..... a dumb idea!

Thanks for the advice Atlas. To be honest I really didn't expect much enthusiasm for the idea from instructors and examiners, most of whom wouldn't have the faintest idea about flying, but have been thoroughly convinced they know more than anyone else. Your response has confirmed that intuitive expectation better than even I imagined.

Your comment ",,,,, anyone with even a modicum of intelligence running very quickly in the opposite direction" refers not to intelligence, but foolish pride, something most instructors and examiners possess in ample supply.

BTW, if you're such a fan of the book that you thought using it would elevate you to the same level as Ayn Rand, then I have some bad news for you. It's not that intelligent. It does have some good bits, but the overall message is either innocently misguided, or worse - intentionally corrosive. "Fate is the Hunter" would have been a far wiser choice.

[jayteeto]

You must be fun to talk to at parties.

[rarelyathome]

Manwell.

Go on give us a hint. Despite your Aussie sledging of instructors and examiners, I wouldn't mind an idea of what your thoughts are.

[Manwell]

Manwell.

Go on give us a hint. Despite your Aussie sledging of instructors and examiners, I wouldn't mind an idea of what your thoughts are.

Thank you rarelyathome. Criticism of anyone can be regarded as destructive, or constructive. Another way to look at it is to acknowledge the truism that offence can only be taken, it can't be given, and as pilots and instructors would have endured more than their fair share of highly emotive criticism, it's completely understandable that they would have developed thick skins.

To outline an idea of my thoughts won't be easy, because they are so different from what I'd initially learned that it's understandable that most would consider them heretical, and I use the religious term intentionally because flying has become based on dogma rather than true objective science.

In brief, however, the general idea is that everything we thought we knew about flying is fatally flawed, and that idea is proven every time a pilot crashes. Every time.

How's that for brief?

[rarelyathome]

Sure, it’s brief but says nothing.

So, for example, straight and level.. We teach set the power and attitude for the required performance for level flight, trim. Keep the horizon in the same position in the windscreen - maintain level (constant altitude or height). Pick a reference well ahead and keep the aircraft tracking to it (straight - constant direction). Keep the aircraft in balance.

What is your heretically different approach?

[Whopity]

Surely, an autoplitot has been programmed with the same missconceptions the rest of us have supposedly been taught!

[Ascend Charlie]

Surely, an autoplitot has been programmed

Actually, the autopilot is George, not Shirley.

Manwell, you might as well elaborate on your theory, instead of just tossing out a grenade and ducking your head.

[Manwell]

Actually, the autopilot is George, not Shirley.

Manwell, you might as well elaborate on your theory, instead of just tossing out a grenade and ducking your head.

I'm not about to make this easy for anyone AC. That would spoil the process of working it out for yourself and that's the best part. If no-one here cares enough about flying to exercise their brain, then that's fine by me. Either you're interested or you're not.

[rarelyathome]

Not then. Not if you're unwilling to engage and outline your ideas.

I have survived nearly 30 years of flying using the 'heretical' methodology and my students don't seem to be coming up short either in the GA or commercial worlds. I am certainly not arrogant and am always willing to discuss improvements in aviation.

Sadly, you are coming across as a troll rather than a serious aviator interested in entering a discussion.

[RVR800]

Is the OP looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? Grievance against FI's due to some personal experience?

[Kemble Pitts]

I've got a secret but I'm not going to tell you cos you're bad!

Connoisseur of the art of self-abuse...

[Big Pistons Forever]

There is absolutely many examples of "fatally flawed" instruction out there. My personal experience flying with pilots who were not doing well was the fact that invariably the problem was a lack of fundamental flying skills. By that I mean they could not recognize and hold the correct attitude for what ever maneuver they trying to fly, could not maintain coordinated flight and could not smoothly transition from one flight regime to another ( eg straight and level to climb). This was because they had never been properly taught ex 5 to 9 in the first place.

My solution in every case was to go back to the very basics and practice the foundation ex 5 to 9 flying skills until the student had mastered them.

It will take a very persuasive argument for someone to convince me that there is a better way to teach the basic hands and feet skills that under pin every part of flying, although I am genuinely open to new ideas.

Where there should be change in flight instruction in my opinion, is in the thinking part of flying. Traditional flight training is all about the mechanical skills, but what is missing is the pilot decision making and threat and error management soft skills. On the very first lesson I talk about "time in the tanks" as an introduction to pilot decision making and all of my ground briefs lead off with the learning what considerations are relevant before/during and after performing what ever maneuver we are going to do.

[rarelyathome]

There is absolutely many examples of "fatally flawed" instruction out there. My personal experience flying with pilots who were not doing well was the fact that invariably the problem was a lack of fundamental flying skills. By that I mean they could not recognize and hold the correct attitude for what ever maneuver they trying to fly, could not maintain coordinated flight and could not smoothly transition from one flight regime to another ( eg straight and level to climb). This was because they had never been properly taught ex 5 to 9 in the first place.

My solution in every case was to go back to the very basics and practice the foundation ex 5 to 9 flying skills until the student had mastered them.

It will take a very persuasive argument for someone to convince me that there is a better way to teach the basic hands and feet skills that under pin every part of flying, although I am genuinely open to new ideas.

Where there should be change in flight instruction in my opinion, is in the thinking part of flying. Traditional flight training is all about the mechanical skills, but what is missing is the pilot decision making and threat and error management soft skills. On the very first lesson I talk about "time in the tanks" as an introduction to pilot decision making and all of my ground briefs lead off with the learning what considerations are relevant before/during and after performing what ever maneuver we are going to do.

Ex 5 is taxiing and not really a separate exercise. The real exercises where time should be spent, but are all to often rushed, are 4.1 & 4.2 effects of controls. Done properly, they're actually quite difficult to teach. Get the student to understand thoroughly the primary and secondary effects of controls, both the main control surfaces and mixture, throttle, carb heat, flaps, effects of speed and slipstream, and the foundation is solidly in place. Many of the problems I come across are as a result of these crucial exercises either being taught badly or simply rushed through.

I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. TEM and what we used to call airmanship is where many of the weaknesses lie, to an extent in new students, but increasingly in the more experienced folk who believe the revailidation hour with an instructor is an insult to their flying skills.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Ex 5 is taxiing and not really a separate exercise. The real exercises where time should be spent, but are all to often rushed, are 4.1 & 4.2 effects of controls. Done properly, they're actually quite difficult to teach. Get the student to understand thoroughly the primary and secondary effects of controls, both the main control surfaces and mixture, throttle, carb heat, flaps, effects of speed and slipstream, and the foundation is solidly in place. Many of the problems I come across are as a result of these crucial exercises either being taught badly or simply rushed through.

I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. TEM and what we used to call airmanship is where many of the weaknesses lie, to an extent in new students, but increasingly in the more experienced folk who believe the revailidation hour with an instructor is an insult to their flying skills.

EX 5 in the Canadian Curriculum is attitudes and movements. Taxiing is Ex 4

The bottom line is if you have not mastered attitudes and movements, straight and level, climbs and descents, and turns; you can't fly an airplane !

[charliegolf]

... everything we thought we knew about flying is fatally flawed, and that idea is proven every time a pilot crashes. Every time.



It's also disproved every time a flight doesn't end in a crash. Which happens more often?

CG (non-instructor)

[Whopity]

The real exercises where time should be spent, but are all to often rushed, are 4.1 & 4.2 effects of controls. Neither of these Exercise numbers feature in the EASA syllabus! They simply list Ex4

[rarelyathome]

Neither of these Exercise numbers feature in the EASA syllabus! They simply list Ex4

i didn’t take you as a pedant.

i know EASA doesn’t split Ex 4 but that is part of my point. Trying to teach all the elements of the exercise in one go means either it is not covered thoroughly enough or, more to the point, the student doesn’t have the capacity to take it all in at once given it is the first real flying lesson.

[Ascend Charlie]

If no-one here cares enough about flying to exercise their brain, then that's fine by me. Either you're interested or you're not.

Well, as RarelyAtHome said, I also have survived for 45 years and 15,000 hrs, mostly in hand-flown unstable aircraft (helicopters) and some military jets, using the knowledge passed on to me by the heretics who came before. I have also successfully passed on this same knowledge to a large number of (now retired) airline captains, none of whom have fallen from the sky in an effort to prove Manwell correct.

Come on, no more Secret Squirrel stuff and Masonic Handshakes, let us have a peek at YOUR thought processes on our hugely defective way of flying.

[Sleepybhudda]

Having read a fair few textbooks on flight instruction and aviation history. A book on CFS history (Central Flying School) summarised that there were really only two independent structures for teaching flying. That from the United States and that from Europe (combination of British Gosport and early French military / civil techniques). This can be seen by the regulations played out all over the world. You either follow US FAR conventions or JAR and now EASA. Russia and China are a little unknown but from what little I know they were influenced by the European (Russia) and US (Chine flying tiger era) theories.

Interesting discussion, though.

[Whopity]

Trying to teach all the elements of the exercise in one go means either it is not covered thoroughly enough or, more to the point, the student doesn’t have the capacity to take it all in at once given it is the first real flying lesson. Totally agree, but the Regulator (EASA) expects DTOs to adhere to a Training Programme based upon the EASA syllabus that neither seperates exercises into 2 parts nor places any emphasis on doing so. It even offers the LAPL option of doing it in 25% less time.

[Manwell]

"There is absolutely many examples of "fatally flawed" instruction out there. My personal experience flying with pilots who were not doing well was the fact that invariably the problem was a lack of fundamental flying skills. By that I mean they could not recognize and hold the correct attitude for what ever maneuver they trying to fly, could not maintain coordinated flight and could not smoothly transition from one flight regime to another ( eg straight and level to climb). This was because they had never been properly taught ex 5 to 9 in the first place."

Thankyou very much Big Pistons. Fundamental skills are indeed the problem. Recognizing and holding attitudes is important, but being able to smoothly control attitude including transition from one to another and keeping the aircraft balanced without reference to the instruments would be even better, would it not? Correct, all these problems stem from never having been properly taught in the first place.

"It will take a very persuasive argument for someone to convince me that there is a better way to teach the basic hands and feet skills that under pin every part of flying, although I am genuinely open to new ideas." You'll be glad to hear there is.

"Where there should be change in flight instruction in my opinion, is in the thinking part of flying." Agreed, but not in the way you implied. Flying is mostly a mental discipline, and the thinking part that is most missing is big picture thinking.

. The real exercises where time should be spent, but are all to often rushed, are 4.1 & 4.2 effects of controls. Many of the problems I come across are as a result of these crucial exercises either being taught badly or simply rushed through.

I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. TEM and what we used to call airmanship is where many of the weaknesses lie, to an extent in new students, but increasingly in the more experienced folk who believe the revailidation hour with an instructor is an insult to their flying skills.

Thank you too rarelyathome. Effects of Controls is indeed the key, and the way it's been taught is basically the whole problem. Airmanship, or lack thereof, is a function of respect. An expat CFI instructed me to discipline a Malaysian student for having the audacity to ask him uncomfortable questions he couldn't answer. His reply, after an appropriate contemplative delay, blew me away. "We used to respect the instructors, but they didn't respect us back..." Fark me! Respect is a two way street! Some of the most valuable lessons I've learned were from my own students. Respect isn't free. It has to be earned.

Now we're on the right track Gentlemen. If the others I haven't responded to would like some attention, try paying attention. You can't buy this knowledge with anything less valuable.

[rarelyathome]

Totally agree, but the Regulator (EASA) expects DTOs to adhere to a Training Programme based upon the EASA syllabus that neither seperates exercises into 2 parts nor places any emphasis on doing so. It even offers the LAPL option of doing it in 25% less time.

Yes EASA expects, in our case an ATO, to adhere to a training programme but it doesn't prohibit exercises being split and I would argue strongly that Ex 4 is a clear case where it needs to be split if it is to be taught thoroughly and at a pace where the student can take it all in. It is the absolute foundation stone.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Thanks for the advice Atlas.

You are most welcome.