Multiple Instructors, what's up with that?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck, I presume in your scenario you are teaching people who already have a degree of experience? My experience with SEP PPL students is one of limited capacity, high workload and a tendency to tire (most are deterioriating after their 5th or 6th cct).
Personally, I find that when teaching the landing it often needs to be broken down into constituent parts. Nail the approach; recognise the position/height to 'flare'; achieve the desired attitude; reduce throttle to idle; arrest sink, keep straight. I think we all would agree that landing is the most difficult and important skill for a pilot to master and it does not come naturally. I prefer to get the student focussed on landing the aircraft and not allowing them to worry about the re-configuration etc required for a T&G. Indeed, I flew with a student PPL the other week who was so keen on re-configuring the aircraft they raised the flap before the landing had even been completed.
Anyway, for that reason I start teaching with full stop landings and then, once the student has become more comfortable, we then progress to T&Gs. Like you, I like short, sharp ccts so that the picture/procedure becomes easily imprinted. Unfortunately in CAA land we rarely have the opportunity to do anything other than a standard, 6-7 minute rectangular bomber pattern which does little for continuity. If the airfield is quiet and we're trying to perfect landing, I will do a set of 'mini ccts' allowing the student less time to 'forget'.
Personally, I find that when teaching the landing it often needs to be broken down into constituent parts. Nail the approach; recognise the position/height to 'flare'; achieve the desired attitude; reduce throttle to idle; arrest sink, keep straight. I think we all would agree that landing is the most difficult and important skill for a pilot to master and it does not come naturally. I prefer to get the student focussed on landing the aircraft and not allowing them to worry about the re-configuration etc required for a T&G. Indeed, I flew with a student PPL the other week who was so keen on re-configuring the aircraft they raised the flap before the landing had even been completed.
Anyway, for that reason I start teaching with full stop landings and then, once the student has become more comfortable, we then progress to T&Gs. Like you, I like short, sharp ccts so that the picture/procedure becomes easily imprinted. Unfortunately in CAA land we rarely have the opportunity to do anything other than a standard, 6-7 minute rectangular bomber pattern which does little for continuity. If the airfield is quiet and we're trying to perfect landing, I will do a set of 'mini ccts' allowing the student less time to 'forget'.
My 0.2 cents
With respect to multiple instructors. Instructors are not robots so I do not think it is unreasonable to evaluate how things are going after the first few hours. But and this is a big but..... it should IMO be a possible consequence of the real issue which is failure to progress. I have a seen a few circumstances, particularly with new instructors, where it was better for all concerned to bring in an experienced instructor to get a student who is struggling off to a good start. What should never happen IMO is a school who is changing instructors for the booking convienience of the school. I strongly believe that is vital to have no instructor changes for the first flight to solo portion at the very least. However under no circumstances should the type of aircraft change before solo.
With respect to touch and go landings. In a perfect world all landings to full stop would be ideal but it is simply not practicable at many airports. However one can often get stop and go landings which a good comprimise and which help put a definite break between the landing and the takeoff, a particularly valuable feature for the early landing lessons.
With respect to multiple instructors. Instructors are not robots so I do not think it is unreasonable to evaluate how things are going after the first few hours. But and this is a big but..... it should IMO be a possible consequence of the real issue which is failure to progress. I have a seen a few circumstances, particularly with new instructors, where it was better for all concerned to bring in an experienced instructor to get a student who is struggling off to a good start. What should never happen IMO is a school who is changing instructors for the booking convienience of the school. I strongly believe that is vital to have no instructor changes for the first flight to solo portion at the very least. However under no circumstances should the type of aircraft change before solo.
With respect to touch and go landings. In a perfect world all landings to full stop would be ideal but it is simply not practicable at many airports. However one can often get stop and go landings which a good comprimise and which help put a definite break between the landing and the takeoff, a particularly valuable feature for the early landing lessons.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: East Coast United States
Age: 86
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect to touch and go landings. In a perfect world all landings to full stop would be ideal but it is simply not practicable at many airports. However one can often get stop and go landings which a good compromise and which help put a definite break between the landing and the takeoff, a particularly valuable feature for the early landing lessons.
In the United States anyway, I've never once seen a situation where this was not possible and/or feasible.
Dudley Henriques
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Gileraguy,
Seems like a lot of the advice/opinions you've received here have come from people with good experience in other countries' training systems, or who for some reason seem to think you're in the UK. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it doesn't necessarily apply to the system you're in. Training in the UK is good; but the way that flight training fits into the larger aviation picture is different - not better or worse, just fundamentally different.
In the Australian training environment, a student who has that many instructors in that amount of training time has every right to feel that things aren't right. It doesn't necessarily mean your school is milking you, but it does mean that things aren't as organised as you should expect them to be. Unless you specifically asked or agreed to be moved between instructors, then there is good benefit in consistency especially for the first 15 or so hours - say up to first or second solo.
I have a very few students who find value in working with whichever instructor is free on the day, but most students find that a few bits of stability in a stressful environment (eg. a familiar face in the aircraft) helps keep things on an even keel.
Cowboy boots would have certainly given me cause to wonder, but putting you in the 172 and then charging for it like that would have had me in the CFI's office straight away, dragging the instructor by the ear.
You are the customer - One of your rights is to choose with whom, when and how you will spend your money. If you find an instructor you like, then stick with them for a solid period of time. After 10-20 hours, do a lesson with another instructor that you are comfortable with based on interactions you've had around the flying school. If it goes ok, then stick with that instructor for a solid period of time. You'll get the benefits of consistency (know what's happening, easier communication, consistent progress), and the benefits of variety (don't end up getting your instructor's bad habits as well as their good ones, find more than one way of accomplishing each task)
Some instructors are in it for the instructing, and some are not. Some are very good indeed and some are complete rubbish. Choose carefully - it is your right and responsibility to do so.
Seems like a lot of the advice/opinions you've received here have come from people with good experience in other countries' training systems, or who for some reason seem to think you're in the UK. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it doesn't necessarily apply to the system you're in. Training in the UK is good; but the way that flight training fits into the larger aviation picture is different - not better or worse, just fundamentally different.
In the Australian training environment, a student who has that many instructors in that amount of training time has every right to feel that things aren't right. It doesn't necessarily mean your school is milking you, but it does mean that things aren't as organised as you should expect them to be. Unless you specifically asked or agreed to be moved between instructors, then there is good benefit in consistency especially for the first 15 or so hours - say up to first or second solo.
I have a very few students who find value in working with whichever instructor is free on the day, but most students find that a few bits of stability in a stressful environment (eg. a familiar face in the aircraft) helps keep things on an even keel.
Cowboy boots would have certainly given me cause to wonder, but putting you in the 172 and then charging for it like that would have had me in the CFI's office straight away, dragging the instructor by the ear.
You are the customer - One of your rights is to choose with whom, when and how you will spend your money. If you find an instructor you like, then stick with them for a solid period of time. After 10-20 hours, do a lesson with another instructor that you are comfortable with based on interactions you've had around the flying school. If it goes ok, then stick with that instructor for a solid period of time. You'll get the benefits of consistency (know what's happening, easier communication, consistent progress), and the benefits of variety (don't end up getting your instructor's bad habits as well as their good ones, find more than one way of accomplishing each task)
Some instructors are in it for the instructing, and some are not. Some are very good indeed and some are complete rubbish. Choose carefully - it is your right and responsibility to do so.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are the customer - One of your rights is to choose with whom, when and how you will spend your money.
i.e. your contract is with the school.
The schools that can accomodate regular requests for instructor changes without any disruption have two problems;
1. Their instructors are below standard; and
2. They are not very busy
2 usually being the result of 1.
You may be thinking of number 1. However, the school has to think of what's best for everyone. Do I agree to your demand to fly with instructor B because you don't like instructor A's flying boots and re-shuffle the students that B already has?
I have instructed in a number of environments and not just flight instruction. Many of the cases where practical skills were taught, the student had a different instructor each exercise. This was (in that particular example) essential to ensure that reports of progress (or the lack thereof) were the balanced view of the instructing team and not simply an individual opinion.
----------------
- If you do not know the instructors,the circumstances or the student then how can you make a proper judgement??? This was widely regarded as a VERY well run school, the particular student had not been chopped and changed - 2 main instructors in the first 40 hours then changing them to try and see if that would help at the end.
Glad to hear that your child has been accomodated. Did you follow up the situation to ensure that the failing teacher received the appropriate retraining.........or is another student going to suffer the same situation?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest problem with UK PPL level instruction os that mostly it is done upside down.
The most junior and least experienced instructors with the shortest service and thus more of an unknown quantity are given the responsibility for attracting new students via trial lessons and then making progress with them as well as retaining them during the hardest parts of the course - up to first solo.
New instructors should start with post solo training and the most experienced instructors should be doing the trial lessons, initial training and the final revision before test.
What other organisation promotes the apprentice to head of sales on day 1?
Too much emphasis is put on getting new instructors unrestricted rather than providing career development. CFI's / supervising instructors should be far less free with their recomendations.
Let new instructors teach post solo exercises until they have grasped the basics and then after some training be let loose to train navigation and then when they have quoite a bit of experience, start them teaching exercises 4 to 11. Finally the most experienced can teach 3 and 12/13.
The good schools will have enough of suitable good instructors who have the experience to teach all of the above and it is at that point that the school can experince the benefit of it's investment in staff training.
It is only when the instructor has demonstrated an ability to teach every aspect well that they should be recomended to have the restriction removed. If that means it takes a very long time then so be it.
The most junior and least experienced instructors with the shortest service and thus more of an unknown quantity are given the responsibility for attracting new students via trial lessons and then making progress with them as well as retaining them during the hardest parts of the course - up to first solo.
New instructors should start with post solo training and the most experienced instructors should be doing the trial lessons, initial training and the final revision before test.
What other organisation promotes the apprentice to head of sales on day 1?
Too much emphasis is put on getting new instructors unrestricted rather than providing career development. CFI's / supervising instructors should be far less free with their recomendations.
Let new instructors teach post solo exercises until they have grasped the basics and then after some training be let loose to train navigation and then when they have quoite a bit of experience, start them teaching exercises 4 to 11. Finally the most experienced can teach 3 and 12/13.
The good schools will have enough of suitable good instructors who have the experience to teach all of the above and it is at that point that the school can experince the benefit of it's investment in staff training.
It is only when the instructor has demonstrated an ability to teach every aspect well that they should be recomended to have the restriction removed. If that means it takes a very long time then so be it.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have to know the instructors to know that a student not going solo by 40 hours (5 hours above the entire course length) without some serious investigation and then being handed from instructor to instructor until they have nearly twice the cource length (in terms of hours) completed but not passed exercise 12/13 but had 7 instructors has been severely failed by the school. In such a case, they would easily get a vast part of their money back should the persue it.
Glad to hear that your child has been accomodated. Did you follow up the situation to ensure that the failing teacher received the appropriate retraining.........or is another student going to suffer the same situation?
Glad to hear that your child has been accomodated. Did you follow up the situation to ensure that the failing teacher received the appropriate retraining.........or is another student going to suffer the same situation?
As far as my daughters teacher goes, again, not a bad teacher for many children, but for some reason there was a personality clash, in my view not a requirement for training - this does happen in all kinds of schools.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I use to teach full stop taxi backs and then use the taxi time to debrief the previous circuit, however later I found it more effective to teach touch and goes as this way we could get more circuits in. In order to reduce the workload for my students I would take control after they landed and then take off myself, using the initial climb to debrief the student on the previous circuit and landing. Later when they became more experienced I would get them to do the takeoff as well.
When it came close to them going solo I would then start teaching full stop taxi backs as this is what they would be doing by themselves. I found this system worked quite well and most of my students learned at a faster pace than most.
When it came close to them going solo I would then start teaching full stop taxi backs as this is what they would be doing by themselves. I found this system worked quite well and most of my students learned at a faster pace than most.
The only time I would stop and taxi-back is if they are having problems and we need some quiet time or we are going to do something like a short or soft field take-off exercise. However, since they can be done on the first take-off, the need for stop and taxi-back displays a bit of a problem in deciding the order of trainig to avoid unnecessary breaks.
using the initial climb to debrief the student on the previous circuit and landing
The aeroplane is for practice. The value of talking in the aircraft while moving is 10% of the value obtained by doing the same brief in a quiet room.
The taxi is recognised as being one of the more critical parts of a flight but this is often ignored. Don't speak of items unrelated to taxi unless the aircraft is stopped - teach as you do and do as you teach.
The 12/13 exercise must be built in stages but ther take-off should be taught in small stages starting with exercise 4A - demo, 4B - follow through, 6A, 6B, 7/8, 9, 10A, 10B, 11A practice........At a minimum they should have done 5 take-offs before they start 12/13. Thus the keeping straight, rotation, climb attitude and climb should already be covered and simply needing polish.
They also need to be able to climb, descend (7/8) turn and climbing/descending turn (9) and fly straight and level (6) because they have already completed those exercises.
Therefore leaving the flare and landing out, what is new in the circuit beyond the quickfire repetition (learning by rote) of basic handling skills previously learned?
If the student can't fly the circuit then the instructor has failed to teach them exercises 1 to 11.
If the student needs a further brief in the air then end the exercise and do the brief. Don't waste their money since they are going to associate you getting some free flying (while mouthing off about something that they clearly do not understand) with them not making progress and put 1 and 2 together to get 3.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only just found this thread, but when discussing students who fail to go solo after more than 40 hours, perhaps you'd benefit from hearing from someone who was once in that position, ie ME!
I started f/w flying before I ever discovered helicopters, for those who don't know me. I wasn't a natural pilot, but I suspect that without things going wrong I would have been an average student. But I had an instructor I didn't get on with, got very scared quite early on while trying to land, and after that lost confidence completely. Being stubborn, I gritted my teeth and stuck with that instructor for quite a few more hours, until the school suggested changing as I was getting nowhere. I was also so lacking in confidence by that time that I could barely drive to the flying school, never mind fly!
My new instructor now had a very, very difficult job. He wasn't just trying to teach me to land, he had to deal with someone with severe lack of confidence problems. It's a very different skill, and not one they teach you on FI courses, or they didn't on mine anyway (some years later of course!). But anyway, he talked a lot, and tried to calm me down, but it didn't really work. Looking back, I think he was a very good instructor, but not for me at the time.
I eventually got an instructor as stubborn as I was, but also very calm and phlegmatic. He simply kept at it. He didn't do anything special, or say a lot, but he never gave up on me, and he never got upset or acted as though I had a problem. It wouldn't have worked for everyone. He was a lowish hours hour builder, but his personality and approach happened to be what I needed at the time. He eventually sent me solo...after a total of 48 hours!
The point I'm rather longwindedly making is that this 'good' v 'bad' instructor thing simply isn't that simple when you're dealing with individuals and something as complex as learning to fly.
I started f/w flying before I ever discovered helicopters, for those who don't know me. I wasn't a natural pilot, but I suspect that without things going wrong I would have been an average student. But I had an instructor I didn't get on with, got very scared quite early on while trying to land, and after that lost confidence completely. Being stubborn, I gritted my teeth and stuck with that instructor for quite a few more hours, until the school suggested changing as I was getting nowhere. I was also so lacking in confidence by that time that I could barely drive to the flying school, never mind fly!
My new instructor now had a very, very difficult job. He wasn't just trying to teach me to land, he had to deal with someone with severe lack of confidence problems. It's a very different skill, and not one they teach you on FI courses, or they didn't on mine anyway (some years later of course!). But anyway, he talked a lot, and tried to calm me down, but it didn't really work. Looking back, I think he was a very good instructor, but not for me at the time.
I eventually got an instructor as stubborn as I was, but also very calm and phlegmatic. He simply kept at it. He didn't do anything special, or say a lot, but he never gave up on me, and he never got upset or acted as though I had a problem. It wouldn't have worked for everyone. He was a lowish hours hour builder, but his personality and approach happened to be what I needed at the time. He eventually sent me solo...after a total of 48 hours!
The point I'm rather longwindedly making is that this 'good' v 'bad' instructor thing simply isn't that simple when you're dealing with individuals and something as complex as learning to fly.
If however, you simply don't like the instructor's cowboy boots
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alister,
I don't. It can't (and should not) be done. De-briefing is for the end of the exercise.
Now that is more like it. A short quick simple pointer regarding one aspect that needs to be corrected and try again. If you do 5 circuits and correct one item each circuit then you will have improved 4 items for the next time.
No. being in full control of the aircraft and realising what is happening when close to the ground is what people have problems with. Solve that and landing is a piece of cake.
Most if not all. There is a difference between completing a safe take-off and initial climb and the usual case of careering down the runway, pulling back on the stick and establishing the aircraft in a climb with the brain still back at the threshold.
Ask your student next time to safely level off as soon as possible once airbourne and fly level just above the runway..........if they manage to level off below 50ft I would be surprised....because in the initial take-off and climb, they are mostly just there for the ride.
I don't know what your organisation's system is but most places these days charge take-off to landing plus a fixed figure eg 10 minutes or 0.2
Landing and taxiback to try again a few times is going to count as flight time for as long as it takes while ending the exercise simply costs the fixed taxi time which was part of the lesson anyway is also part of the required training. Briefing a problem in the air to fix it is mostly a waste of time because of the situation, the distractions and the fact that the student is there to fly as much for their money as they can - not for you to fly and talk at them.
This is just as bad as the instructor who sits there yacking on and on and on with little bits of encouragement, hints, corrections. Far better to tell the student what they need to do and then see what they do, let them do it without input from you (other than safety) and then you have the ideal situation;
The student has done it "their way".
You either say that is OK or "their way" need to be changed by x.
Now they can relate to something that they have done compared to what they need to do and can try again.
People learn better by making mistakes and then when they are made aware of the mistake, trying it again without making the same mistake.
----------
Whirlybird,
Thanks for showing us a good eample of the fact that often, students are their own worst enemy i.e. your "gritting your teeth".
Makes me wonder how it had to get so bad when someone should have picked up on it much earlier i.e. phase checks. If you were progressing normally at 5, 10, 15 hours, how did you end up at 20 or 30 hours without a major investigation no matter how much you were gritting your teeth?
You have demonstrated the failing of the idea that the student chooses the instructor / one student one instructor. The school was probably (incorrectly) waiting for you to ask for a change or complying with your request for no change (incorrect again).
The great thing about a student flying with 2 or 3 instructors is that eventhough all 3 may be 100% great instructors, the student will usually latch onto one in a certain way and while that does not mean that instructor should then become exclusive to that student, they should realise the situation and use it to manage the overall training.
Nothing better than a quiet moment straight and level during which some general chat comes round to something that effectively gets an answer to "how do you like flying with Bob?".........and being able to measure the true effect of the "Sure ........I don't mind flying with Bob".
How do you debrief a student after each circuit?
then I'll give them some quick feedback at the next convenient time whilst in the air
Landing is the challenging part for the majority of student pilots.
DFC - How many students do you know who have a problem taking off and climbing?
Ask your student next time to safely level off as soon as possible once airbourne and fly level just above the runway..........if they manage to level off below 50ft I would be surprised....because in the initial take-off and climb, they are mostly just there for the ride.
Think about all the students time and money you are wasting from terminating a lesson early. They'll end up paying more taxi time then air time.
Landing and taxiback to try again a few times is going to count as flight time for as long as it takes while ending the exercise simply costs the fixed taxi time which was part of the lesson anyway is also part of the required training. Briefing a problem in the air to fix it is mostly a waste of time because of the situation, the distractions and the fact that the student is there to fly as much for their money as they can - not for you to fly and talk at them.
This is just as bad as the instructor who sits there yacking on and on and on with little bits of encouragement, hints, corrections. Far better to tell the student what they need to do and then see what they do, let them do it without input from you (other than safety) and then you have the ideal situation;
The student has done it "their way".
You either say that is OK or "their way" need to be changed by x.
Now they can relate to something that they have done compared to what they need to do and can try again.
People learn better by making mistakes and then when they are made aware of the mistake, trying it again without making the same mistake.
----------
Whirlybird,
Thanks for showing us a good eample of the fact that often, students are their own worst enemy i.e. your "gritting your teeth".
Makes me wonder how it had to get so bad when someone should have picked up on it much earlier i.e. phase checks. If you were progressing normally at 5, 10, 15 hours, how did you end up at 20 or 30 hours without a major investigation no matter how much you were gritting your teeth?
You have demonstrated the failing of the idea that the student chooses the instructor / one student one instructor. The school was probably (incorrectly) waiting for you to ask for a change or complying with your request for no change (incorrect again).
The great thing about a student flying with 2 or 3 instructors is that eventhough all 3 may be 100% great instructors, the student will usually latch onto one in a certain way and while that does not mean that instructor should then become exclusive to that student, they should realise the situation and use it to manage the overall training.
Nothing better than a quiet moment straight and level during which some general chat comes round to something that effectively gets an answer to "how do you like flying with Bob?".........and being able to measure the true effect of the "Sure ........I don't mind flying with Bob".
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow
U guys from across the pond...we are seperated by a common language!
You all sound like you have the exact same book...that each lesson is numbered and that everyone uses the same method.
It also sounds like you don't use a ''hobbs meter'' for recording time.
And anyone who signs a ''contract'' with a flying school is probably making a mistake...most people here pay as you go...and if things aren't going well...the money stops.
I taught people to fly near San Francisco, CA (USA). It is considered one of the most demanding areas of our nation to learn to fly...with almost a dozen airports of varying size in a small area. A small airport, small runway, constant cross winds. It took longer than average to solo anyone here...but they could land on their spot better than those learning at a long runway without crosswinds. Indeed, radio work takes as much time as control manipulation.
Each student learns in a different manner. There are fears to overcome. Lack of aptitude (I've told more than one student he or she is not really cut out for flying and to save their money).
I encourage all flight instructors (and we use different terminology here...different certificates like CFI, CFII, MEI....I have all) to ask their students what comes across better in terms of learning. And it must be money aside.
I encourage you to take your students to the instructor bench (it occurs to me that you guys don't even know what this is...a bench (chair) near the runway where one can observe solos, landings etc) along with a radio and watch landings/approaches.
I would also include a good amonut of go arounds as practice.
The real trick to landing can be taught in two unusual ways.
ONE. Go to a department store and get on the down escalator (moving stairs) and have the student note the ''spot'' doesn't move along the glideslope of the escalator.
TWO. Have the student stand up on level ground and practice going up and down on his toes and have him perceive the difference using periphreal vision...I rever to "STick and Rudder" here and have the student get used to judging his height above the runway in this fashion.
I have also taken a student out on the runway and (on a long runway mind you) and have had them hold the pitch attitude in landing while doing a high speed taxi/skip off. Confidence in side/periphreal vision must be learned instead of lowering the nose to see over the cowl.
And finally, try adjusting the seat...a remarkable improvement in some landing performance can be found by properly determining an eye height/seat height.
You all sound like you have the exact same book...that each lesson is numbered and that everyone uses the same method.
It also sounds like you don't use a ''hobbs meter'' for recording time.
And anyone who signs a ''contract'' with a flying school is probably making a mistake...most people here pay as you go...and if things aren't going well...the money stops.
I taught people to fly near San Francisco, CA (USA). It is considered one of the most demanding areas of our nation to learn to fly...with almost a dozen airports of varying size in a small area. A small airport, small runway, constant cross winds. It took longer than average to solo anyone here...but they could land on their spot better than those learning at a long runway without crosswinds. Indeed, radio work takes as much time as control manipulation.
Each student learns in a different manner. There are fears to overcome. Lack of aptitude (I've told more than one student he or she is not really cut out for flying and to save their money).
I encourage all flight instructors (and we use different terminology here...different certificates like CFI, CFII, MEI....I have all) to ask their students what comes across better in terms of learning. And it must be money aside.
I encourage you to take your students to the instructor bench (it occurs to me that you guys don't even know what this is...a bench (chair) near the runway where one can observe solos, landings etc) along with a radio and watch landings/approaches.
I would also include a good amonut of go arounds as practice.
The real trick to landing can be taught in two unusual ways.
ONE. Go to a department store and get on the down escalator (moving stairs) and have the student note the ''spot'' doesn't move along the glideslope of the escalator.
TWO. Have the student stand up on level ground and practice going up and down on his toes and have him perceive the difference using periphreal vision...I rever to "STick and Rudder" here and have the student get used to judging his height above the runway in this fashion.
I have also taken a student out on the runway and (on a long runway mind you) and have had them hold the pitch attitude in landing while doing a high speed taxi/skip off. Confidence in side/periphreal vision must be learned instead of lowering the nose to see over the cowl.
And finally, try adjusting the seat...a remarkable improvement in some landing performance can be found by properly determining an eye height/seat height.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alister
please don't interpret my thoughts as being too dogmatic...I am simply being direct, but I also insist that the student be put first in the unique world of learning to fly...and the safety of the student even before the learning.
of course some of your fellow jaa posters are just fine...but I gain a sense of expediting rather than teaching.
oh, by the way...the most difficult students I've had were from NASA AMES research center...aeronautical engineers can be tough...they think too much! ;-)
please don't interpret my thoughts as being too dogmatic...I am simply being direct, but I also insist that the student be put first in the unique world of learning to fly...and the safety of the student even before the learning.
of course some of your fellow jaa posters are just fine...but I gain a sense of expediting rather than teaching.
oh, by the way...the most difficult students I've had were from NASA AMES research center...aeronautical engineers can be tough...they think too much! ;-)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am really out of the loop trying to follow this discussion because I haven't the faintest clue what the following means.
12 13 exercises:
4A 4B 6A 7/8 10A 10B 11A.
Trying to follow a discussion based on lesson plan numbers I can't recall ever reading means I shouldn't even be in this discussion.
12 13 exercises:
4A 4B 6A 7/8 10A 10B 11A.
Trying to follow a discussion based on lesson plan numbers I can't recall ever reading means I shouldn't even be in this discussion.
Not knowing the exercise numbers when talking about PPL training is about the same as not knowing what "on the step" means when talking about Canso conversion training.....
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really, do you actually think that way BPF? Or do you just automatically jump at every comment I make because quite frankly I find your comment insulting.
Are you telling me the exercise numbers are the same in all countries?
And I do not refer to PBY training as " Canso " training because not many people outside of Canada would know what I am talking about.
While we are doing this dance Big Pistons do you really think that it would be all that difficult for me to refresh my memory on the PPL lesson plans or do you think that instructing at the more advanced level somehow cause one to forget the basics?
Are you telling me the exercise numbers are the same in all countries?
And I do not refer to PBY training as " Canso " training because not many people outside of Canada would know what I am talking about.
While we are doing this dance Big Pistons do you really think that it would be all that difficult for me to refresh my memory on the PPL lesson plans or do you think that instructing at the more advanced level somehow cause one to forget the basics?
Last edited by Chuck Ellsworth; 22nd Dec 2009 at 21:36.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I worded it wrong so let me try again.
I believe the lesson plan numbers refer to the British CAA lesson plans do they not?
I have not seen their lesson plans....
Does that clear this up a bit?
I believe the lesson plan numbers refer to the British CAA lesson plans do they not?
I have not seen their lesson plans....
Does that clear this up a bit?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here you go Chuck. The numbering is common across JAA (and I guess will be adopted by EASA). Ordinarily, exercises 4, 6, 8 and 10b are split into 2 (sometimes 3) parts for ease of teaching. You may hear someone mention either 4a or 4(i), they mean the same. For example, the first part of exercise 4 would be effects of controls including secondary effects and the use of trim. The second part of the exercise (4b or 4(ii)) would incorporate effects of speed/slipstream and flaps. There is no formal routine to be followed but the examiner would be looking for evidence that each exercise had been completed.
1 Familiarisation with the aeroplane
1E Emergency drills
2 Preparation for, and action after flight
3 Air experience
4 Effects of controls
5 Taxying
5E Emergencies
6 Straight and level
7 Climbing
8 Descending
9 Turning
10A Slow flight
10B Stalling
11 Spin avoidance
12 Take-off and climb to downwind position
13 The circuit, approach and landing
12/13E Emergencies on take-off and landing
14 First solo
15 Advanced turning
16 Forced landing without power
17 Precautionary landing
18A Navigation
18B Navigation at lower levels
18C Radio navigation
19 Basic instrument flying
There is a more complete breakdown here with the flying requirements being listed from page 27.
1 Familiarisation with the aeroplane
1E Emergency drills
2 Preparation for, and action after flight
3 Air experience
4 Effects of controls
5 Taxying
5E Emergencies
6 Straight and level
7 Climbing
8 Descending
9 Turning
10A Slow flight
10B Stalling
11 Spin avoidance
12 Take-off and climb to downwind position
13 The circuit, approach and landing
12/13E Emergencies on take-off and landing
14 First solo
15 Advanced turning
16 Forced landing without power
17 Precautionary landing
18A Navigation
18B Navigation at lower levels
18C Radio navigation
19 Basic instrument flying
There is a more complete breakdown here with the flying requirements being listed from page 27.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Cows getting bigger.
AS I thought the numbering system is different to what we have here in Canada and not being sure of the differences it is difficult to know exactly what they mean.
Don't pay any attention to the reactions of Big Pistons Forever as any post by me on any aviation forum is like a Spanish bull seeing a red cape being waved
in front of it, he just lowers his head and charges.
Now back to the regular programming.
AS I thought the numbering system is different to what we have here in Canada and not being sure of the differences it is difficult to know exactly what they mean.
Don't pay any attention to the reactions of Big Pistons Forever as any post by me on any aviation forum is like a Spanish bull seeing a red cape being waved
in front of it, he just lowers his head and charges.
Now back to the regular programming.