Initial Teaching of a Cross Country
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nial,
'HEAVY PILOTS GO TO THE CHECKLIST THERE IS JUST TO MANY ITEMS TO COVER" doesnt justify your local flying school having the moonlaunch checklist for a C152.The aircraft that i fly is a widebody and we have one before takeoff checklist item that being "flaps".
I am staggerd by the gimmicky items that your local four gold bar instructor introduces to such a simple aircraft because it sounds proffessional.If you are a really proffesional operator stick to the aircraft manufacturers manual and you will save yourself(and hopefully your barristers time if you ever needed it) a lot of heartache.
Question everything that your local flying school teach you and see if it is just'' folk law".Conduct your operations in accordance with the AFM wholey and soley. That in my humble opinion is the sign of a true proffesional aviator.
'HEAVY PILOTS GO TO THE CHECKLIST THERE IS JUST TO MANY ITEMS TO COVER" doesnt justify your local flying school having the moonlaunch checklist for a C152.The aircraft that i fly is a widebody and we have one before takeoff checklist item that being "flaps".
I am staggerd by the gimmicky items that your local four gold bar instructor introduces to such a simple aircraft because it sounds proffessional.If you are a really proffesional operator stick to the aircraft manufacturers manual and you will save yourself(and hopefully your barristers time if you ever needed it) a lot of heartache.
Question everything that your local flying school teach you and see if it is just'' folk law".Conduct your operations in accordance with the AFM wholey and soley. That in my humble opinion is the sign of a true proffesional aviator.
This malaise is common amongst GA aircraft. Checks are written by people who are either trying to sell checklists and feel they have to give value for money by making the lists long, or instructors who want to be airline pilots and think they need to make them complex because they want to fly complex aircraft.
And of course, the manufacturer will produce a checklist when he builds the aircraft, but lets not evn go there! Suffice to say the list produced by Aerospatiale for the Rallye I used to own was written by someone from Mars!
The RAF used to have generic checks which covered nearly all aircraft from Magister to the Spitfire - with a few modifications. I used to fly the Chipmunk in the RAF and they still work for most of the GA aircraft I fly now.
I now fly the 744 for a living, the checks cover two sides of A4. In typical Boeing fashion, they are succint - covering the essentials. I also instruct on two variants of PA28 at a local club. The CFI re-wrote the checks to cover both models. They are simplicity itself and there are no superfluous actions. But they are still longer than the 744s!
IMHO, The lesson for students should be 'follow the lists, but maintain the big picture'. What do I mean? - Well, know the checks (learning them saves time and money and also prevents fingers slipping, missing a line and a vital action) - and don't rely on them to the extent that if you forget to do a list, you don't do something stupid like land with the wheels up.
This last comment sounds a bit flippant, but what I do is when I line up, I check the flaps are in the correct place, the pitot heater is on and I know what the clearance is. At about 400' on the approach, I check Reds (mixture), Blues (RPM), Greens (wheels), Flaps and Clearance. This are extra to the checks, but the things that are going to embarrass or even kill you if missed. I teach my students to do the same - even on simple types, based on the premis that they may fly complex aircraft in the future.
It's an airmanship thing!
And of course, the manufacturer will produce a checklist when he builds the aircraft, but lets not evn go there! Suffice to say the list produced by Aerospatiale for the Rallye I used to own was written by someone from Mars!
The RAF used to have generic checks which covered nearly all aircraft from Magister to the Spitfire - with a few modifications. I used to fly the Chipmunk in the RAF and they still work for most of the GA aircraft I fly now.
I now fly the 744 for a living, the checks cover two sides of A4. In typical Boeing fashion, they are succint - covering the essentials. I also instruct on two variants of PA28 at a local club. The CFI re-wrote the checks to cover both models. They are simplicity itself and there are no superfluous actions. But they are still longer than the 744s!
IMHO, The lesson for students should be 'follow the lists, but maintain the big picture'. What do I mean? - Well, know the checks (learning them saves time and money and also prevents fingers slipping, missing a line and a vital action) - and don't rely on them to the extent that if you forget to do a list, you don't do something stupid like land with the wheels up.
This last comment sounds a bit flippant, but what I do is when I line up, I check the flaps are in the correct place, the pitot heater is on and I know what the clearance is. At about 400' on the approach, I check Reds (mixture), Blues (RPM), Greens (wheels), Flaps and Clearance. This are extra to the checks, but the things that are going to embarrass or even kill you if missed. I teach my students to do the same - even on simple types, based on the premis that they may fly complex aircraft in the future.
It's an airmanship thing!
Dan. Agree with your thoughts. I am wary, however, of teaching a call out of specific items that do not apply to the aircraft type.
For instance, it is almost universal among flying schools to teach student pilots to say out aloud "Wheels down and locked" (as part of the before landing checks) on fixed gear aircraft, on the somewhat dubious premise that it is a good habit to get into because they may one day fly a retractable.
This despite the fact that before a student is considered competent to fly in command of a retractable gear aircraft, he must have completed a specific course of training and have been certified competent.
It is during this training course that the specific drill of checking the landing gear down for landing is brought into action. As well as confirming gear up and locked as part of the after take off checklist.
The problem with teaching a fictitious drill for a fictitious operation (on a fixed gear type) is that in times of stress, there is a risk of reverting to the habit of calling gear down and locked - or pitch full fine without taking the appropriate action when later operating these special design feature types.
Not forgetting that the same student may one day fly an amphibian where the before landing checks might be "Landing gear UP and locked for a water landing!"
Interestingly, one very rarely hears of a fixed gear aircraft checklist which, while calling for gear down and locked on the before landing checks, calls for gear up and locked as part of the after take off checks.... A little inconsistent, one could argue.
Recently, the Australian Transport Safety Board advised that despite a thorough search through its data base on incidents involving wheels up landings, there was no statistical data to confirm that calling gear down and locked, as part of the before landing checks on fixed gear aircraft, lessened the chances of an inadvertent wheels up landing on a retractable type.
For instance, it is almost universal among flying schools to teach student pilots to say out aloud "Wheels down and locked" (as part of the before landing checks) on fixed gear aircraft, on the somewhat dubious premise that it is a good habit to get into because they may one day fly a retractable.
This despite the fact that before a student is considered competent to fly in command of a retractable gear aircraft, he must have completed a specific course of training and have been certified competent.
It is during this training course that the specific drill of checking the landing gear down for landing is brought into action. As well as confirming gear up and locked as part of the after take off checklist.
The problem with teaching a fictitious drill for a fictitious operation (on a fixed gear type) is that in times of stress, there is a risk of reverting to the habit of calling gear down and locked - or pitch full fine without taking the appropriate action when later operating these special design feature types.
Not forgetting that the same student may one day fly an amphibian where the before landing checks might be "Landing gear UP and locked for a water landing!"
Interestingly, one very rarely hears of a fixed gear aircraft checklist which, while calling for gear down and locked on the before landing checks, calls for gear up and locked as part of the after take off checks.... A little inconsistent, one could argue.
Recently, the Australian Transport Safety Board advised that despite a thorough search through its data base on incidents involving wheels up landings, there was no statistical data to confirm that calling gear down and locked, as part of the before landing checks on fixed gear aircraft, lessened the chances of an inadvertent wheels up landing on a retractable type.
Indeed, there are dangers. But I'm of the school where I try to instil a sense of awareness and airmanship from an early stage.
However, they will always get you somehow. For example, a danger arises when a check list has become so familiar that it is easy to pay 'Lip Service' to it. I was sitting in the back of a Tucano and watched a fairly advanced student fail to raise the gear after a touch and go, despite calling out the check.
Sure enough, on the downwind leg, he moved the gear lever as required to by the pre-landing checks and raised the gear!
However, they will always get you somehow. For example, a danger arises when a check list has become so familiar that it is easy to pay 'Lip Service' to it. I was sitting in the back of a Tucano and watched a fairly advanced student fail to raise the gear after a touch and go, despite calling out the check.
Sure enough, on the downwind leg, he moved the gear lever as required to by the pre-landing checks and raised the gear!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vortex......
The use of mnemonics as a memory aid for pre starts, take off, pre landings, etc appears to be quite commonly taught in Australia.
Although there may be quite a varient on each drill they all have some common thread.
TEMPFISCH, would be the memory aid for checks at the run up bay pre take off. IE: T - trims set, temps green, p - primer in and locked, F flaps set, fuel on, I - instruments checked and correct, S-as required, C - carby heat, H - Harnesses and hatches locked.
FMOST (I don't know EFMOST but as I say there are many varients) would be a engine failure drill. IE: F- check pumps, tanks etc, M - mixture, mags.........Anyway I'm sure you get my drift.
These assist the new student in remembering what he must do at certain points during the flight and also saves the use of written check list. They also have the advantage in that they cover the main things that if not down could get Bloggs into strife.
But as Dan has stated they must be taught, and here it it up to the instructor, to be used with awareness witha total understanding of why and what for they are being used.
It is therefore important to reinforce that each check, even though single pilot, is in the first part a call which requires a second part, a thought out and logical response.
Should this be the case I see little wrong in generic checks such as calling gear - down an locked, whether in a fixed gear or retractable aircraft.
The use of mnemonics as a memory aid for pre starts, take off, pre landings, etc appears to be quite commonly taught in Australia.
Although there may be quite a varient on each drill they all have some common thread.
TEMPFISCH, would be the memory aid for checks at the run up bay pre take off. IE: T - trims set, temps green, p - primer in and locked, F flaps set, fuel on, I - instruments checked and correct, S-as required, C - carby heat, H - Harnesses and hatches locked.
FMOST (I don't know EFMOST but as I say there are many varients) would be a engine failure drill. IE: F- check pumps, tanks etc, M - mixture, mags.........Anyway I'm sure you get my drift.
These assist the new student in remembering what he must do at certain points during the flight and also saves the use of written check list. They also have the advantage in that they cover the main things that if not down could get Bloggs into strife.
But as Dan has stated they must be taught, and here it it up to the instructor, to be used with awareness witha total understanding of why and what for they are being used.
It is therefore important to reinforce that each check, even though single pilot, is in the first part a call which requires a second part, a thought out and logical response.
Should this be the case I see little wrong in generic checks such as calling gear - down an locked, whether in a fixed gear or retractable aircraft.
Gen Ties. But where will these checks end?You are pre-supposing the student will eventually fly a retractable gear aircraft (otherwise why check gear down and locked by your reasoning?)
As far as I am aware, any aircraft that has a retractable gear has also a variable pitch propeller and probably has cowl flaps. Some even have an auto pilot. Should we now teach the student on his Tiger Moth, Chipmunk, Cessna 150 or Warrior - not only to call gear down and locked but additionally gear up and locked after take off - pitch control back to ficticious climb RPM, cowl flaps closed in the cruise?
Then downwind we teach gear down and locked - auto pilot disengaged - pitch full fine on late final. Teach him to say aloud cowl flaps open after landing, too.
If 50,000 RAF and Commonwealth trainee pilots who learned to fly on Tiger Moths and Stearmans, without being taught by their instructors fictitious checks like gear down and locked - then surely they cannot all be wrong. So where did all this change?
In my view there is no justification for teaching false check items in any aircraft
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh and Gen Ties dont forget to align the IRS, start the APU,
test the TCAS etc etc etc,it just goes on and on.
Why teach fictious drills to components that dont even exist on the aircraft eg retractable undercarriage.If your lodgic is that bloggs may fly an aircraft equipped with all of these items one day then why not be consistent and include everything that is pertinent to the safe operation of these aircraft.
Your lodgic is flawed.
As Centaurus so rightly points out i bet you dont get the student to call that the undercarriage is up and locked after takeoff on your fixed undercarriage generic wonderjet, yet you call for the imaginary gear to be down and locked on your spaceshuttle downwind drill(i bet the checklist is far simpler on the space shuttle than your local Flying Schools C152)
Again dont be like all of the other mushrooms in flying and blurt out these poetic drills that have no relevance at all to the aircraft you are operating.
Stick to the POH and you cannot go wrong
test the TCAS etc etc etc,it just goes on and on.
Why teach fictious drills to components that dont even exist on the aircraft eg retractable undercarriage.If your lodgic is that bloggs may fly an aircraft equipped with all of these items one day then why not be consistent and include everything that is pertinent to the safe operation of these aircraft.
Your lodgic is flawed.
As Centaurus so rightly points out i bet you dont get the student to call that the undercarriage is up and locked after takeoff on your fixed undercarriage generic wonderjet, yet you call for the imaginary gear to be down and locked on your spaceshuttle downwind drill(i bet the checklist is far simpler on the space shuttle than your local Flying Schools C152)
Again dont be like all of the other mushrooms in flying and blurt out these poetic drills that have no relevance at all to the aircraft you are operating.
Stick to the POH and you cannot go wrong
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teaching "type" or teaching "generic" is something I have wondered about for many years.
With regard to one of Centaurus's posts - I was riding alongside a UK flight instructor - who had 700 hours of "dual given"..........all in Cessna 150/152/172.
We were in a Piper Arrow and, sure enough, he said "undercarriage down and locked" - and did NOTHING. When I asked about it, he said he had been doing the call - with no actions - for many years....so he kept doing it!!
With regard to one of Centaurus's posts - I was riding alongside a UK flight instructor - who had 700 hours of "dual given"..........all in Cessna 150/152/172.
We were in a Piper Arrow and, sure enough, he said "undercarriage down and locked" - and did NOTHING. When I asked about it, he said he had been doing the call - with no actions - for many years....so he kept doing it!!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez Vcl
Talk about tackling the man and not the ball.
I guess if you are having a problem putting together a reasoned arguement what else is left.
Centaurus points out
" it is almost universal among flying schools to teach student pilots to say out aloud "Wheels down and locked" (as part of the before landing checks) on fixed gear aircraft,...".
If it is almost universal surely there must be must be some reasoned and thought out arguement for it. I would suggest that the many CFI's and instructers past and present can not all be wrong.
The premise that the problem with teaching a fictitious drill for a fictitious operation (on a fixed gear type) is that in times of stress, there is a risk of reverting to the habit of calling gear down and locked without taking the appropriate action IMO doesn't hold water. If the student has been taught to use the checks in the correct fashion the check should be conducted with an equally considered and reasoned response.
If Centuarus's method were to be adoped, his own arguement must be considered; that in times of stress, his pilot may not even consider an undercarraige check, let alone call the check.
From my experience those that generally fly the lighter retractables do not use a written checklist nor do they have a 2nd Officer such as Vcl to remind him to lower the gear. If right from the first flight in the C150 or whatever he has considered the undercarraige as down prior to landing he has gone a long way to not achieving a wheels ups.
As to your thoughts on aligning the IRS, start the APU,
test the TCAS etc etc etc, well, I've given it some thought, but realized that you can get into more trouble by not puting the gear down that in worrying about those items. So I won't bother taking your advice and teaching those, thank you.
Centaurus you attribute factual information to the Australian Transport Safety Board in one of your posts. Could you please provide a reference so that your quote can be verified.
Regards
Talk about tackling the man and not the ball.
I guess if you are having a problem putting together a reasoned arguement what else is left.
Centaurus points out
" it is almost universal among flying schools to teach student pilots to say out aloud "Wheels down and locked" (as part of the before landing checks) on fixed gear aircraft,...".
If it is almost universal surely there must be must be some reasoned and thought out arguement for it. I would suggest that the many CFI's and instructers past and present can not all be wrong.
The premise that the problem with teaching a fictitious drill for a fictitious operation (on a fixed gear type) is that in times of stress, there is a risk of reverting to the habit of calling gear down and locked without taking the appropriate action IMO doesn't hold water. If the student has been taught to use the checks in the correct fashion the check should be conducted with an equally considered and reasoned response.
If Centuarus's method were to be adoped, his own arguement must be considered; that in times of stress, his pilot may not even consider an undercarraige check, let alone call the check.
From my experience those that generally fly the lighter retractables do not use a written checklist nor do they have a 2nd Officer such as Vcl to remind him to lower the gear. If right from the first flight in the C150 or whatever he has considered the undercarraige as down prior to landing he has gone a long way to not achieving a wheels ups.
As to your thoughts on aligning the IRS, start the APU,
test the TCAS etc etc etc, well, I've given it some thought, but realized that you can get into more trouble by not puting the gear down that in worrying about those items. So I won't bother taking your advice and teaching those, thank you.
Centaurus you attribute factual information to the Australian Transport Safety Board in one of your posts. Could you please provide a reference so that your quote can be verified.
Regards
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TMPFISCH – I was taught a variation of that some thirty plus years ago and I still teach it today.
My pet hate at the holding point is the student who labours over a checklist, as if a recipe for disaster, without any attempt to consider the written words before him. Trip after trip and still not committed to memory. Therefore my students have been taught to systematically scan the cockpit, completing the checks and following up with the checklist or a mnemonic. No, it is not a repeat of the checks but a quick cast of the eye down the list or recall of the mnemonic to simply reassure that nothing has been forgotten, or everything has been done. It is surprisingly how quickly my students grasp a more logical process to each flight phase normally requiring a checklist.
Checklists work fine in two crew operations and that is why they exist in the above stated B767/744 scenarios. Challenge and response between two crewmembers. The mnemonic is also a challenge and response in a single crew environment and ensures that all checks are done.
Centaurus, surely you are not suggesting that ‘single pilots’ should become distracted by wading through pages of checklist items when an aide-memoire allows the checks to be undertaken whilst lookout is maintained?
Vcl: I hear what you are saying about auto-pilots and APU’s but these are airmanship items. So are raising the gear and flaps after take-off, turning off the landing lights, engaging the yaw damper and disarming the auto-ignition. That is one reason for the brief checklists in turbine aircraft compared to the comprehensive checks imposed by many schools. Airmanship come with experience.
Centaurus: I recall the rapid rise in GA retractables in the late sixties, early seventies and the not infrequent gear-ups that were occurring. Instructors approached the problem with the undercarriage check on down-wind. We always taught two responses; ‘Fixed’ for non-retractables and ‘Green & down’ in retractables. At least the abinitio student was becoming aware of the possibility of a retractable undercarriage. Maybe if 50,000 RAAF/RAF pilots were taught those items in their fixed gear training we wouldn’t hear the tower calling ‘check gear’ to military pilots on ‘final’. :o
My pet hate at the holding point is the student who labours over a checklist, as if a recipe for disaster, without any attempt to consider the written words before him. Trip after trip and still not committed to memory. Therefore my students have been taught to systematically scan the cockpit, completing the checks and following up with the checklist or a mnemonic. No, it is not a repeat of the checks but a quick cast of the eye down the list or recall of the mnemonic to simply reassure that nothing has been forgotten, or everything has been done. It is surprisingly how quickly my students grasp a more logical process to each flight phase normally requiring a checklist.
Checklists work fine in two crew operations and that is why they exist in the above stated B767/744 scenarios. Challenge and response between two crewmembers. The mnemonic is also a challenge and response in a single crew environment and ensures that all checks are done.
Centaurus, surely you are not suggesting that ‘single pilots’ should become distracted by wading through pages of checklist items when an aide-memoire allows the checks to be undertaken whilst lookout is maintained?
Vcl: I hear what you are saying about auto-pilots and APU’s but these are airmanship items. So are raising the gear and flaps after take-off, turning off the landing lights, engaging the yaw damper and disarming the auto-ignition. That is one reason for the brief checklists in turbine aircraft compared to the comprehensive checks imposed by many schools. Airmanship come with experience.
Centaurus: I recall the rapid rise in GA retractables in the late sixties, early seventies and the not infrequent gear-ups that were occurring. Instructors approached the problem with the undercarriage check on down-wind. We always taught two responses; ‘Fixed’ for non-retractables and ‘Green & down’ in retractables. At least the abinitio student was becoming aware of the possibility of a retractable undercarriage. Maybe if 50,000 RAAF/RAF pilots were taught those items in their fixed gear training we wouldn’t hear the tower calling ‘check gear’ to military pilots on ‘final’. :o
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus
I sit here curious as to how you get the authority to decide when a subject has run it course and it is time to move on.
Since you entered the subject you have made in excess of a 30% of the following posts (6 out of 16) and now YOU decide it is time to take someone elses bat and ball and stop further discussion.
You and I have obviously reached a stalemate in our ideals but bear in mind the other few thousand PPrUNER's may wish also to put their point across as well.
A little arrogant methinks.
I sit here curious as to how you get the authority to decide when a subject has run it course and it is time to move on.
Since you entered the subject you have made in excess of a 30% of the following posts (6 out of 16) and now YOU decide it is time to take someone elses bat and ball and stop further discussion.
You and I have obviously reached a stalemate in our ideals but bear in mind the other few thousand PPrUNER's may wish also to put their point across as well.
A little arrogant methinks.
Last edited by Gen Ties; 14th Jun 2002 at 11:05.
GT. Delighted to read your views. My fault - I did not explain myself very eloquently.
What I tried to say - but not very well methinks - was that as as my views on the subject are obviously very much in the minority, it was time to exit gracefully stage left and leave future discourse on checks to the experts.
What I tried to say - but not very well methinks - was that as as my views on the subject are obviously very much in the minority, it was time to exit gracefully stage left and leave future discourse on checks to the experts.
Guest
Posts: n/a
MY 2 cents worth. I have found that when I was instructing the full use of checklists dropped dramatically as soon folks got their PPL and started flying on their own. Personnally I think the problem was trhe checklist were not very good. They were too long ( the C150 checklist had more items than the checklist for the DC6 firebomber I used to fly ). Also the checklist did not flow very well . As the junior instructor on staff I failed to effect change but later I was responsible for creating checklists for several multi engine Cessna's and Piper models flown single pilot IFR. My philosophy was as follows.
1. Each block was assigned as a "do list " or a "checklist"
A do list means you read the checklist and do the item. A checklist means you do all items from memory and then check them.
Therefore you get
Prestart=Do
Afterstart=check
First flight=Do
Pretakeoff=Do
Line up=Check
Climb=check
Cruise=Do
Approach=Do
Landing=Check
Afterlanding=check
Shutdown=Do
All blocks follow the same flow. Starting at the floor between the seats the checks flow up the centre consol, around the panel from right to left and finish on the left ( or overhead ) switch panel. I have had quite a bit of positive feed back from other pilots with this system.
). Also the checklist did not flow very well . As the junior instructor on staff I failed to effect change but later I was responsible for creating checklists for several multi engine Cessna's and Piper models flown single pilot IFR. My philosophy was as follows.1. Each block was assigned as a "do list " or a "checklist"
A do list means you read the checklist and do the item. A checklist means you do all items from memory and then check them.
Therefore you get
Prestart=Do
Afterstart=check
First flight=Do
Pretakeoff=Do
Line up=Check
Climb=check
Cruise=Do
Approach=Do
Landing=Check
Afterlanding=check
Shutdown=Do
All blocks follow the same flow. Starting at the floor between the seats the checks flow up the centre consol, around the panel from right to left and finish on the left ( or overhead ) switch panel. I have had quite a bit of positive feed back from other pilots with this system.
Back to Subject of Thread
When pilots start Navs they overload all too easily, so KISS becomes a necessary instructor self-brief item.
KHOC, (Keep Head Out of Cockpit), is a basic for learning 'situational awareness' - which probably avoids getting lost - which probably avoids running out of fuel -which probably avoids having to use the Forced Landing Checklist !
While I don't disagree with most of the helpful stuff already posted, I'm all for the absolute basics in early navs. Simplifying the task must result in faster learning, and that's what we're here to do.
cheers,
When pilots start Navs they overload all too easily, so KISS becomes a necessary instructor self-brief item.
KHOC, (Keep Head Out of Cockpit), is a basic for learning 'situational awareness' - which probably avoids getting lost - which probably avoids running out of fuel -which probably avoids having to use the Forced Landing Checklist !
While I don't disagree with most of the helpful stuff already posted, I'm all for the absolute basics in early navs. Simplifying the task must result in faster learning, and that's what we're here to do.
cheers,
Actually Dan, I didn't re-write the checklist on my own! The FIC instructors and I decided to throw out some of the more pointless checks and to simplify things as much as possible - and then I edited the final version!
Teaching pilot navigation isn't difficult really. Plan the first dual navigation exercise as a simple 2 leg effort between large features and have a couple of track/ETA checks at easy fractions of leg length on the first leg. Let the student do the take-off and climb, but take control and demonstrate the checks before and after the start point (we use pre-HAAT/post-HAAT). Then fly the first leg yourself and demonstrate the activity cycle as far as the first track/ETA check; maintain control but get the student to calculate the revised ETA at the second track/ETA check and to recognise the turning point. Try as hard as possible not to induce any track errors so that the student can see that the system of planning accurately, flying accurately and thinking ahead actually works - and concentrate on the activity cycle and proportional timing corrections. Remember to include FREDA checks at low activity times, NOT at turning points or track/ETA checks.
On the return leg, get the student to do the pre-HAAT, post-HAAT checks and to fly as far as the first track/ETA check. Once he/she's calculated a revised ETA for the end point whilst flying the ac, take control and deliberately put the ac 2 or 3 miles off track at the next track/ETA check. Then introduce the Standard Closing Angle correction method, get the student to assess the cross-track error and to work out the corrective heading and ETA amendment but fly the ac back to track yourself using his/her calculations. When the corrective time has elapsed, resume the correct heading, do a FREDA check and then let the student fly the remainder of the leg. Make the end point of the navigation exercise somewhere familiar to the student, then get him/her to rejoin the aerodrome - perhaps include a revision of the RT fail join. Introduce things in stages, not all in one go. Make the next dual exercise a 'safety module' incorporating 'operation at minimum level' and 'forced landings with power' and (in the UK) use of the Emergency Fixing Service on 121.5. Do NOT let the student get beyond this stage until he/she has passed the Navigation and Radio Aids, Meteorology and Flight Performance and Planning exams.
Make the student's first couple of solo navigation exercises the same route as he/she has flown dual, then let another FI do an independent progress check before sending the student off on an unseen solo exercise. Build up his/her confidence and skill, but insist on accuracy and don't allow any 'over map reading'!
Teaching pilot navigation isn't difficult really. Plan the first dual navigation exercise as a simple 2 leg effort between large features and have a couple of track/ETA checks at easy fractions of leg length on the first leg. Let the student do the take-off and climb, but take control and demonstrate the checks before and after the start point (we use pre-HAAT/post-HAAT). Then fly the first leg yourself and demonstrate the activity cycle as far as the first track/ETA check; maintain control but get the student to calculate the revised ETA at the second track/ETA check and to recognise the turning point. Try as hard as possible not to induce any track errors so that the student can see that the system of planning accurately, flying accurately and thinking ahead actually works - and concentrate on the activity cycle and proportional timing corrections. Remember to include FREDA checks at low activity times, NOT at turning points or track/ETA checks.
On the return leg, get the student to do the pre-HAAT, post-HAAT checks and to fly as far as the first track/ETA check. Once he/she's calculated a revised ETA for the end point whilst flying the ac, take control and deliberately put the ac 2 or 3 miles off track at the next track/ETA check. Then introduce the Standard Closing Angle correction method, get the student to assess the cross-track error and to work out the corrective heading and ETA amendment but fly the ac back to track yourself using his/her calculations. When the corrective time has elapsed, resume the correct heading, do a FREDA check and then let the student fly the remainder of the leg. Make the end point of the navigation exercise somewhere familiar to the student, then get him/her to rejoin the aerodrome - perhaps include a revision of the RT fail join. Introduce things in stages, not all in one go. Make the next dual exercise a 'safety module' incorporating 'operation at minimum level' and 'forced landings with power' and (in the UK) use of the Emergency Fixing Service on 121.5. Do NOT let the student get beyond this stage until he/she has passed the Navigation and Radio Aids, Meteorology and Flight Performance and Planning exams.
Make the student's first couple of solo navigation exercises the same route as he/she has flown dual, then let another FI do an independent progress check before sending the student off on an unseen solo exercise. Build up his/her confidence and skill, but insist on accuracy and don't allow any 'over map reading'!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
Fully concur. What you have described is the 'Demonstration-Performance Method' of teaching. Identification of the learning outcomes to the student, explanation and demonstration of the steps to achieve those outcomes and providing the student with the opportunity to practice under the instructors supervision. This is followed up with an evaluation of the students’ performance.
Many early NAV students spend too much time looking at the map and not enough time maintaining straight and level. In many cases this has been developed from instructors who lack sufficient confidence in their own basic navigation techniques. TAS, G/S and drift should be determined within the first twenty minutes of cruise followed by correction after the first or second fix. NAV cycles need only occur during a few minutes spanning estimates over a fix. Between fixes the student should be encouraged to concentrate on heading and altitude, monitor the systems and enjoy the scenery.
I think that many low-time instructors are themselves learning during NAV training and the student develops the ‘track-crawling’ habits from the instructors’ anxiety. It is also very difficult to teach NAV techniques when many short legs are flown. I have used the ‘out and back’ NAVEX frequently to build confidence and permit sufficient time for the student to experience the ‘time-speed-distance’ technique with built in 1:60 corrections. However I feel that instructors should have adequate NAV experience to develop confidence in the techniques they are teaching.
Fully concur. What you have described is the 'Demonstration-Performance Method' of teaching. Identification of the learning outcomes to the student, explanation and demonstration of the steps to achieve those outcomes and providing the student with the opportunity to practice under the instructors supervision. This is followed up with an evaluation of the students’ performance.
Many early NAV students spend too much time looking at the map and not enough time maintaining straight and level. In many cases this has been developed from instructors who lack sufficient confidence in their own basic navigation techniques. TAS, G/S and drift should be determined within the first twenty minutes of cruise followed by correction after the first or second fix. NAV cycles need only occur during a few minutes spanning estimates over a fix. Between fixes the student should be encouraged to concentrate on heading and altitude, monitor the systems and enjoy the scenery.
I think that many low-time instructors are themselves learning during NAV training and the student develops the ‘track-crawling’ habits from the instructors’ anxiety. It is also very difficult to teach NAV techniques when many short legs are flown. I have used the ‘out and back’ NAVEX frequently to build confidence and permit sufficient time for the student to experience the ‘time-speed-distance’ technique with built in 1:60 corrections. However I feel that instructors should have adequate NAV experience to develop confidence in the techniques they are teaching.
I define 'navigation' as either:
1. 'Maintaining straight and level balanced flight along a pre-planned track using (at PPL level) visual fixing methods'
or 2. 'Building canals in the 18th century'!
I also explain that it can't be difficult - after all, even navigators can do it......
1. 'Maintaining straight and level balanced flight along a pre-planned track using (at PPL level) visual fixing methods'
or 2. 'Building canals in the 18th century'!
I also explain that it can't be difficult - after all, even navigators can do it......
Kinda easy to spot the answers from the JAR(read English)-people HUH?
Listen,the guy's asking a question...he's from Michigan..the USA..where they teach you how to fly for real..not be an accountant...
Just focus on the dead-reckoning bit..make it an relatively easy x-c.....uncontrolled airports and such.Student is gonna have his handsful as it is.Take an easy alt.if you can..2500feet and you can go in any direction without having to climb or descend.
Have fun....
Hope to talk to you soon Gone West.. 
Listen,the guy's asking a question...he's from Michigan..the USA..where they teach you how to fly for real..not be an accountant...
Just focus on the dead-reckoning bit..make it an relatively easy x-c.....uncontrolled airports and such.Student is gonna have his handsful as it is.Take an easy alt.if you can..2500feet and you can go in any direction without having to climb or descend.
Have fun....
Hope to talk to you soon Gone West..
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
As being someone who taught the first Navex in a similar fashion to your method I whole heartedly agree that this appears to be most satisfactory way of training.
All training should be seen a series of building blocks and the first Nav should be viewed no differently.
I considered that an important part of the first navex was an extensive pre flight planning. This planning not only covering the obvious such as correct plan, equipment, but as to what to expect during the whole flight, from submission of the plan, radio calls right through post flight requirements.
To this end I also found that a "virtual nav" from the comfort of a couple of chairs in the briefing room to be beneficial.
This "virtual nav" would cover siting in the "virtual aircraft", organizing charts and equipment, departing from the area, making appropriate radio calls, conducting enroute nav techniques and other checks in the appropriate places, returning to base etc.
Then on the actual navex I would unload some of the workload pressure.
I would make Nav 1 a three leg exercise, with the student flying the first leg (something he is used to and comfortable with) whilst I would complete all else such as radio calls, G/S checks, Nav Log notes etc, advising the student as to what and why I was doing.
The second leg was role reversed with me flying and the student completing the navigation items, radio calls etc. These items supervised and prompted as required.
The third leg would see the student have a go at putting both the navigation and flying together to get a feel for the workload. This being by no means a test, but a dual exercise as a prelude for Navex 2.
During the flight the student was encouraged to enjoy both the view, scenery and the flight itself. An appropriate work cycle should be developed to this end allowing the student to realize that it is not necessary to follow track on the chart every second of the trip.
Teaching of basic map reading were included during on all legs and Airmanship points were reinforced.
Regards
As being someone who taught the first Navex in a similar fashion to your method I whole heartedly agree that this appears to be most satisfactory way of training.
All training should be seen a series of building blocks and the first Nav should be viewed no differently.
I considered that an important part of the first navex was an extensive pre flight planning. This planning not only covering the obvious such as correct plan, equipment, but as to what to expect during the whole flight, from submission of the plan, radio calls right through post flight requirements.
To this end I also found that a "virtual nav" from the comfort of a couple of chairs in the briefing room to be beneficial.
This "virtual nav" would cover siting in the "virtual aircraft", organizing charts and equipment, departing from the area, making appropriate radio calls, conducting enroute nav techniques and other checks in the appropriate places, returning to base etc.
Then on the actual navex I would unload some of the workload pressure.
I would make Nav 1 a three leg exercise, with the student flying the first leg (something he is used to and comfortable with) whilst I would complete all else such as radio calls, G/S checks, Nav Log notes etc, advising the student as to what and why I was doing.
The second leg was role reversed with me flying and the student completing the navigation items, radio calls etc. These items supervised and prompted as required.
The third leg would see the student have a go at putting both the navigation and flying together to get a feel for the workload. This being by no means a test, but a dual exercise as a prelude for Navex 2.
During the flight the student was encouraged to enjoy both the view, scenery and the flight itself. An appropriate work cycle should be developed to this end allowing the student to realize that it is not necessary to follow track on the chart every second of the trip.
Teaching of basic map reading were included during on all legs and Airmanship points were reinforced.
Regards