HOW TO FLY?
The idea that "a lot of failures are totally unpredictable" is a comforting excuse for pilots as they walk away from a smoking wreck, but it's simply not true.
One engine lets go in an impressive manner, with a turbine wheel leaping out of its engine, ripping through the tower, taking out the hydraulics and electrics, and lodging in the other engine, causing a huge reduction in power. They are going down, no way to stay up.
Pilot tries to pickle the load, but with no power cannot do so.
Loadmaster scrambles to get to the manual release, but slips in the hydraulic fluid gushing into the rear cabin and cannot get to it. They cannot drop the load.
Pilot manages to just fly the aircraft onto the ground straight ahead, having to land on the external load along the way.
Fortunately for them, the load, which is usually a semi-trainer, was 3 rubber bladders of water, which squished and absorbed the impact.
As the rotor RPM decayed, the rear blades started chopping through the cabin roof, as the tilt mechanism, powered by electrics, was still in full forward mode.
Luckily, nobody was injured.
What part of that accident was predictable to you?
And your trail of logic is a little off-track, accusing me of being scared and out of control, simply because I question your bold statement that everything is predictable. Definitely not scared of declaring your thread as a load of horsefeathers.
And I would really like to know how long it would take a student of yours to reach a solo standard. All those unforeseeable events.
When I did my training, we were taught the basics of flying, plus how to do touchdown autos, hydraulics-off run-on landings, and manual fuel ops (for when the auto governor gave up), as these were the foreseeable and statistically most likely things to go wrong with a Huey. And with 11 hours of dual, all my course went solo.
Further training then covered the less-likely failure modes, up until graduation with 120 hrs and qualified on turbines, general flying, low level, instrument rating, night VFR rating, formation endorsement, sling loads and hoist ops. And since then I have not had a single serious failure. All that has been thrown at me was a high-side N2 runaway in a BK117.
When I did my training, we were taught the basics of flying, plus how to do touchdown autos, hydraulics-off run-on landings, and manual fuel ops (for when the auto governor gave up), as these were the foreseeable and statistically most likely things to go wrong with a Huey. And with 11 hours of dual, all my course went solo.
Further training then covered the less-likely failure modes, up until graduation with 120 hrs and qualified on turbines, general flying, low level, instrument rating, night VFR rating, formation endorsement, sling loads and hoist ops. And since then I have not had a single serious failure. All that has been thrown at me was a high-side N2 runaway in a BK117.
Thread Starter
At the start I did say a pilot could predict most failures, but not all, and didn't elaborate on that sufficiently. In fact I amplified that error in another response to you. Please forgive that slip of consciousness.
As you rightly suggested, the accident above is possibly an example of one of those very few unpredictable failures, but without additional information, we can't be certain. For example, did the machine provide a subtle clue to it's impending explosion, an unexplained vibration perhaps? Let's accept for a moment that it was unannounced, and these events do occur occasionally, then pilot skill and knowledge is necessary to minimize damage to craft and crew. That's the bit I missed, and it was a silly omission, but it happened and we didn't die so hopefully, we can all learn from it.
Your question about time to solo is irrelevant in the bigger picture, because the focus is on the safe and efficient operation of an aircraft, both in the air and on the ground - and I'm sure you've heard that before. If it takes an extra hour or even ten to solo, it's worth it if the pilot knows how to fly well enough to be able to control power + attitude. This was one of the hurdles I had to get over too before it's real significance became apparent, so I'm not surprised an ex-military man would place almost religious significance on time to solo. I certainly did. Ironically, the time taken to solo may or may not increase, depending on how much learning has to be undone. Additionally, the investment of a few extra hours in the ab initio phase will pay back much bigger returns in the longer run. Imagine the benefit of knowing how to fly before nav, night, IF, low level, and formation aerobatics training. By that, I mean knowing how to fly instinctively, without over-reliance on instruments. In fact, aircraft can be flown safely without any instruments at all if the pilot knows how to fly.
Manwell, I wasn't putting too much emphasis on "time to solo", my point was that the course, before solo, only looked at the three emergencies which a student might be expected to handle.
Your suggestion of a captain being able to cope with almost ANY emergency would lengthen any pilot's course of training, and delay the solo phase to a detrimental degree. Solo time is important for consolidation of training and building confidence in one's skills. If it doesn't happen until 40 or 50 hours of non-stop emergencies, your course looks a little overly inwards-looking.
In addition to Power+Attitude (in Balance) = Performance, you also need to add "TRIM OR FAIL!" for the plank drivers.
Your suggestion of a captain being able to cope with almost ANY emergency would lengthen any pilot's course of training, and delay the solo phase to a detrimental degree. Solo time is important for consolidation of training and building confidence in one's skills. If it doesn't happen until 40 or 50 hours of non-stop emergencies, your course looks a little overly inwards-looking.
In addition to Power+Attitude (in Balance) = Performance, you also need to add "TRIM OR FAIL!" for the plank drivers.
Not quite jonkster. It's obviously not practical to cover every possible contingency, but it is practical and possible to teach people how to control power and attitude, and instil in them a passion for knowledge about their machine, and themselves. Yes, the contention is that currently, training doesn't teach the basics properly. By overloading the student with too much information during initial training that doesn't demonstrably contribute to either safety or efficiency, both safety and efficiency are compromised. The classic example of this is when a pilot forgets to fly the aircraft in an emergency, focusing instead on a wide variety of compelling distractions that would have been drummed into him by his instructor.
if so, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Reckon that is an ideal most would aspire to. Not sure it is a revolutionary idea though but do acknowledge it isn't always done well.
In terms of what I do badly in instructing, I suspect that many of the issues pilots really come unstuck over are often human factors rather than pure stick skill deficiences and teaching people and organisations how to operate to avoid the issues human factors throw at us is actually the thing we do quite badly as instructors (and organisations and regulators), not because we don't care or try but mostly because I don't think we as humans know how to best train people not behave as humans, or we think that if people are alerted to human factor issues they will not fall trap to them.
Tell me how we can better teach that area and that would be revolutionary.
Rarely have I read such UTTER nonsense as posted on this thread by Manwell!
I sincerely hope that no real flight instructors will bother with such obvious garbage.
I sincerely hope that no real flight instructors will bother with such obvious garbage.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By setting the right power parameters for a given flight attitude to nail a precise speed, any pilot who reached a satisfactory level of proficiency should really be able to fly a circuit from TO to LDG without looking at the IAS.
I am not sure that even a great number of instructors would be able to do that today.
The Garmin G500 or G1000 these wonderful tools are often misused ang grab pilot attention to try and keep the vertical and horizontal path when they should look out of the window, chasing speed and heading continously; About the flight parameters (power settings in MAP or RPM + attitude for any speed) Virtually nobody I know uses them, except maybe to stabilise cruise when its time to reduce power..And then so often the wrong use of trim comes up.
Correct parameters for a stable final approach, idem, no mental awareness of the aiming point and touchdown always way to much speed, we are talking here about absolute basics that are not properly instilled...Then we wonder "How to fly"
Thread Starter
so we need to teach them good stick and rudder skills, prepare them for the most likely contigencies and to avoid overwhelming them in their early training with information but instead tailor it to their stage of progress? And encourage them to learn more about their aircraft and its systems , airmanship and aviation in general?
if so, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Reckon that is an ideal most would aspire to. Not sure it is a revolutionary idea though but do acknowledge it isn't always done well.
In terms of what I do badly in instructing, I suspect that many of the issues pilots really come unstuck over are often human factors rather than pure stick skill deficiences and teaching people and organisations how to operate to avoid the issues human factors throw at us is actually the thing we do quite badly as instructors (and organisations and regulators), not because we don't care or try but mostly because I don't think we as humans know how to best train people not behave as humans, or we think that if people are alerted to human factor issues they will not fall trap to them.
Tell me how we can better teach that area and that would be revolutionary.
if so, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Reckon that is an ideal most would aspire to. Not sure it is a revolutionary idea though but do acknowledge it isn't always done well.
In terms of what I do badly in instructing, I suspect that many of the issues pilots really come unstuck over are often human factors rather than pure stick skill deficiences and teaching people and organisations how to operate to avoid the issues human factors throw at us is actually the thing we do quite badly as instructors (and organisations and regulators), not because we don't care or try but mostly because I don't think we as humans know how to best train people not behave as humans, or we think that if people are alerted to human factor issues they will not fall trap to them.
Tell me how we can better teach that area and that would be revolutionary.
What's revolutionary about it is how those basics are taught, and what specifically isn't taught because it doesn't correspond to the appropriate level on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs at that particular time. In simpler terms, the most important skills a pilot needs in the ab initio phase is how to control attitude, in pitch, roll, and yaw, plus power, because it satisfies their need for security. That's all.
By allowing the student to repetitively practice each element of power control, for example, while preventing any and all secondary effects without the instructor continually interrupting, and only interrupting after he's repeated the same mistake a few times, then demonstrating correct technique once while explaining why his attempt isn't working, before allowing him to continually repeat the exercise in rapid succession again. The idea is for the student to spend the most time manipulating controls, not the instructor, but not so much he doesn't know correct technique.
After those fundamental foundations are laid properly, each successive element is taught and repetitively practice in rapid succession until the technique is established in muscle memory, and the visual, aural, and other sensory signals are correlated in short term memory, which will transfer to long term memory as training progresses by ensuring each control element is performed so it looks the same way each time without requiring reference to instruments at all. No other information is included until the student has those foundations established, exactly as the priorities are listed. Aviate - Navigate - Communicate. Once the pilot is capable of controlling the aircraft in pitch, roll, yaw, and power, that satisfies the basic need for security in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, enabling him to more easily focus on achieving higher levels by applying those basic skills. Obviously, there's more to it than this, but that is an outline of the methodology that is repeated each time a new skill is taught.
Your comments about Human Factors are excellent. Specifically, this bit, "I don't think we as humans know how to best train people not behave as humans". Man, I could go on for hours about Human Factors, but here's the executive summary relative to that comment - Our goal isn't to train people how not to behave as humans, rather, to acknowledge our strengths and weaknesses, and capitalize on our strengths first, before strengthening our weaknesses. People know how to use their senses already, so let them use those to learn how to control power and attitude first, before complicating things. Get the picture?
Manwell, all you are saying is basic IT, which every mil instructor has had drilled into them:
Demo
Direct
Monitor
Re-demo when needed
Monitor
The old adage of Power + Attitude (in balance) = Performance isn't worth Jack if the dopey student isn't critical enough to see that the performance isn't what is required, and the attitude or power or balance needs to be adjusted.
Demo
Direct
Monitor
Re-demo when needed
Monitor
The old adage of Power + Attitude (in balance) = Performance isn't worth Jack if the dopey student isn't critical enough to see that the performance isn't what is required, and the attitude or power or balance needs to be adjusted.
Thread Starter
Manwell, all you are saying is basic IT, which every mil instructor has had drilled into them:
Demo
Direct
Monitor
Re-demo when needed
Monitor
The old adage of Power + Attitude (in balance) = Performance isn't worth Jack if the dopey student isn't critical enough to see that the performance isn't what is required, and the attitude or power or balance needs to be adjusted.
Demo
Direct
Monitor
Re-demo when needed
Monitor
The old adage of Power + Attitude (in balance) = Performance isn't worth Jack if the dopey student isn't critical enough to see that the performance isn't what is required, and the attitude or power or balance needs to be adjusted.
Looking at your last comment above, made me recall something important. What if the dopey student isn't able to see that the performance isn't as required because the even dopier instructor doesn't know how to teach?
the even dopier instructor doesn't know how to teach?
Thread Starter
BTW, knowing how to fly and knowing how to teach it are two separate things. Logically, younger pilots whose sights are set on building hours to snare a cosy seat in the front of an airliner, won't be much inclined to focus instead on the needs of their students.
fly a circuit from TO to LDG without looking at the IAS.
Anyway every student I ever taught including the PPL's got this exercise and for strong students I would cover up the altimeter too. Students could stay usually within 50 feet of the standard downwind altitude just by looking at the ground
Thread Starter
My last 7 students were all flight instructor courses. I did that with all of them and not one had ever done one before and all were all rather freaked out. Of course it's not very hard. The funniest one was my weakest student. We were on final and I could see he was really nervous without the ASI crutch so I asked him what he thought was the airspeed was. The very tentative reply was "65 kts I think" so I took the cover off the ASI and the needle was EXACTLY pointing at 65. I thought the expression of "jaw dropping" was just a saying but that day I saw it actually happen.
Anyway every student I ever taught including the PPL's got this exercise and for strong students I would cover up the altimeter too. Students could stay usually within 50 feet of the standard downwind altitude just by looking at the ground
Anyway every student I ever taught including the PPL's got this exercise and for strong students I would cover up the altimeter too. Students could stay usually within 50 feet of the standard downwind altitude just by looking at the ground
