Finger Trouble in the cockpit?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,698
Likes: 1,304
From: Australia
Eye-In_the Sky.
It is worth putting a new student in a simulator for the first two or three lessons of effect of controls, cockpit familiarisation, climbing and descending etc. Part of the content of these sequences is to have the student note the instrument indications. They don't get airsick and are not subject to radio and intercomm instructions coming in their ears. By the time they get into the real aircraft cockpit they are familiar with the controls and instruments and what they do.
In the air, I use the "About Yea" method of attitude flying. First show the student the level flight attitude. Then deliberately hold the nose too high and then same again with the nose too low. Tell him that those are the wrong attitudes - then show him the correct attitude and say "About Yea". It works every time and beats fingers and thumbs.
Low Pass. If you enjoy the "identify flaps" policy, then to be consistent you must get the student to say "identify" when operating other potentially critical levers such as gear lever, mixture lever, pitch lever, magneto switches, etc. After all, the student may just as easily pull the mixture to cut-off instead of closing the throttle on base leg, or select pitch full coarse instead of full fine, or turn off the magneto key to off as part of a forced landing trouble check. Are you going to have him repeat the mantra "Identified" for all those items? Of course not. Where does it all end?
A case in point is the superfluous drill of calling "gear down and locked" as part of the before landing drill on a fixed gear ab-initio aircraft - based upon the supposition that it will prepare the student for the day that he/she will fly a retractable.
To be consistent one must also teach the student to say "Gear up and Locked" after take off in a fixed gear aircraft.
The former drill is universal at some flying schools while the latter drill is unheard off.
I suggest that students should not be taught to mouth by rote, specific system drills that having nothing to do with the aircraft they are currently learning to fly.
Flying school instructors invariably have a plethora of personal drills that they were taught and which due primacy, they will rarely forget - even though those drills are quite irrelevant. They in turn pass these myths down to their students, who, if they become junior instructors, pass the same myths down the line - and so on. Mythical drills are not a factor in the major airlines so why does it happen in general aviation? One of life's mystery's!
It is worth putting a new student in a simulator for the first two or three lessons of effect of controls, cockpit familiarisation, climbing and descending etc. Part of the content of these sequences is to have the student note the instrument indications. They don't get airsick and are not subject to radio and intercomm instructions coming in their ears. By the time they get into the real aircraft cockpit they are familiar with the controls and instruments and what they do.
In the air, I use the "About Yea" method of attitude flying. First show the student the level flight attitude. Then deliberately hold the nose too high and then same again with the nose too low. Tell him that those are the wrong attitudes - then show him the correct attitude and say "About Yea". It works every time and beats fingers and thumbs.
Low Pass. If you enjoy the "identify flaps" policy, then to be consistent you must get the student to say "identify" when operating other potentially critical levers such as gear lever, mixture lever, pitch lever, magneto switches, etc. After all, the student may just as easily pull the mixture to cut-off instead of closing the throttle on base leg, or select pitch full coarse instead of full fine, or turn off the magneto key to off as part of a forced landing trouble check. Are you going to have him repeat the mantra "Identified" for all those items? Of course not. Where does it all end?
A case in point is the superfluous drill of calling "gear down and locked" as part of the before landing drill on a fixed gear ab-initio aircraft - based upon the supposition that it will prepare the student for the day that he/she will fly a retractable.
To be consistent one must also teach the student to say "Gear up and Locked" after take off in a fixed gear aircraft.
The former drill is universal at some flying schools while the latter drill is unheard off.
I suggest that students should not be taught to mouth by rote, specific system drills that having nothing to do with the aircraft they are currently learning to fly.
Flying school instructors invariably have a plethora of personal drills that they were taught and which due primacy, they will rarely forget - even though those drills are quite irrelevant. They in turn pass these myths down to their students, who, if they become junior instructors, pass the same myths down the line - and so on. Mythical drills are not a factor in the major airlines so why does it happen in general aviation? One of life's mystery's!
Fleet Manager
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,448
Likes: 310
From: various places .....
Just two observations -
(a) calls such as checking that the down and welded gear is, indeed, down and welded .... encourage a superficial attitude to running checklists ... the pilot is at great risk of falling into the trap of calling .. but not observing and confirming .. because the particular call relates to a non-event item. Similarly, with unnecessarily lengthy checklists, there is a tendency to 'hurry the checklist along' with a like trap ... most of us have seen this effect in simulator training.
(b) too heavy a reliance on written checklists can slow the whole sequence down .. why is it that many pilots 'read and do' routine check sequences rather than 'do from recall' (or by conventional scan sequence) and then 'read to check' ? .. it is a different matter with infrequently used abnormal drills, of course.
(a) calls such as checking that the down and welded gear is, indeed, down and welded .... encourage a superficial attitude to running checklists ... the pilot is at great risk of falling into the trap of calling .. but not observing and confirming .. because the particular call relates to a non-event item. Similarly, with unnecessarily lengthy checklists, there is a tendency to 'hurry the checklist along' with a like trap ... most of us have seen this effect in simulator training.
(b) too heavy a reliance on written checklists can slow the whole sequence down .. why is it that many pilots 'read and do' routine check sequences rather than 'do from recall' (or by conventional scan sequence) and then 'read to check' ? .. it is a different matter with infrequently used abnormal drills, of course.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
From: Hants, UK
Centaurus:
Thanks for your reply. As I and others have said so far in this thread, we all have different methods of achieving the goal of teaching people to become pilots. You have yours and it works for you, and I have mine which works as well, and believe me does not 'dumb-down' the process.
My personal opinion is that your idea of sticking people in the sim first is flawed, as it will encourage them to rely on the instruments far too much at an early stage, and you will have trouble weaning them off using the AH instead of the natural horizon for their attitude flying. The primary effect of rudder is far more obvious with a bootful of rudder and crossed ailerons to counteract secondary roll, for example, than it ever will be by watching the display on the average GA sim. However, that is my opinion, and you say it works for you, so that's your business.
Chuck:
I'm sorry if my analogy offended you. You seem, as has been mentioned by others so far, very angry for no apparent reason. Most contributors here have been agreeing that there is a risk of dumbing down which must be resisted, so I don't understand your row of angry faces.
My maligned phrase was trying to convey that I use all the skills I have learnt in my 1200 hours flying to try to teach others to become pilots as well. The exact method varies depending upon the student, but the end result is usually the same. That is what I meant by the toolbox analogy.
While you are having a go at the present state of affairs and the lack of understanding of rudder, for example, you better mention the likes of Cessna and Piper. After all, they are the worst culprits as they designed training aircraft wih Frise or Differential ailerons to overcome Adverse Aileron Yaw and make them easy to put into a balanced turn with minimal rudder. Or does the fact that Cessas are a non-event at the stall and nigh on impossible to spin unintentionally make them a bad training aircraft or one where less low-hours people are likely to kill themselves?
The aircraft you learnt on in 1953 probably didn't have that, did it? Does that necessarily make today's students less competent than you? We used to send 18 year old boys off to shoot at the Luftwaffe with 6 hours in a Spitfire (not the most forgiving of aircraft), and many of them killed themselves taking off or landing. I suppose those that didn't were by definition good pilots. Strange way of weeding out the weak, though!
Thanks for your reply. As I and others have said so far in this thread, we all have different methods of achieving the goal of teaching people to become pilots. You have yours and it works for you, and I have mine which works as well, and believe me does not 'dumb-down' the process.
My personal opinion is that your idea of sticking people in the sim first is flawed, as it will encourage them to rely on the instruments far too much at an early stage, and you will have trouble weaning them off using the AH instead of the natural horizon for their attitude flying. The primary effect of rudder is far more obvious with a bootful of rudder and crossed ailerons to counteract secondary roll, for example, than it ever will be by watching the display on the average GA sim. However, that is my opinion, and you say it works for you, so that's your business.
Chuck:
I'm sorry if my analogy offended you. You seem, as has been mentioned by others so far, very angry for no apparent reason. Most contributors here have been agreeing that there is a risk of dumbing down which must be resisted, so I don't understand your row of angry faces.
My maligned phrase was trying to convey that I use all the skills I have learnt in my 1200 hours flying to try to teach others to become pilots as well. The exact method varies depending upon the student, but the end result is usually the same. That is what I meant by the toolbox analogy.
While you are having a go at the present state of affairs and the lack of understanding of rudder, for example, you better mention the likes of Cessna and Piper. After all, they are the worst culprits as they designed training aircraft wih Frise or Differential ailerons to overcome Adverse Aileron Yaw and make them easy to put into a balanced turn with minimal rudder. Or does the fact that Cessas are a non-event at the stall and nigh on impossible to spin unintentionally make them a bad training aircraft or one where less low-hours people are likely to kill themselves?
The aircraft you learnt on in 1953 probably didn't have that, did it? Does that necessarily make today's students less competent than you? We used to send 18 year old boys off to shoot at the Luftwaffe with 6 hours in a Spitfire (not the most forgiving of aircraft), and many of them killed themselves taking off or landing. I suppose those that didn't were by definition good pilots. Strange way of weeding out the weak, though!
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,698
Likes: 1,304
From: Australia
Eyeinthesky.
Interesting point about students fixating on the instruments when flying the real aircraft after having flown the simulator. I haven't struck that one before - but I suppose it could happen occasionally. I wonder if that also applies to airline pilots who of course are brought up on a diet of simulators?
All things being equal, I have found that the average time to first solo is decreased significantly when introductory synthetic trainer simulator sessions are used.
On the other hand, have you seen any evidence that students who take great delight in flying Microsoft Simulator 2000 on their PC's are, in the real aeroplane, fixating on their Cessna 152 artificial horizon to the detriment of keeping an eye outside?
Interesting point about students fixating on the instruments when flying the real aircraft after having flown the simulator. I haven't struck that one before - but I suppose it could happen occasionally. I wonder if that also applies to airline pilots who of course are brought up on a diet of simulators?
All things being equal, I have found that the average time to first solo is decreased significantly when introductory synthetic trainer simulator sessions are used.
On the other hand, have you seen any evidence that students who take great delight in flying Microsoft Simulator 2000 on their PC's are, in the real aeroplane, fixating on their Cessna 152 artificial horizon to the detriment of keeping an eye outside?
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver Island
Hi eyeinthesky:
First you will notice my three frowning faces were about pilots landing on the nose wheel, a clear indication of poor training. This phenomena is quite common everywhere, all one needs do is watch light aircraft land.
As to my being very angry about the poor quality of pilots being produced by flying schools, well I am not really angry, rather I would say I am disapointed.
The plus side of this for me is I have a never ending supply of students that require retraining.
As to the use of rudder or rather the lack of use and understanding of rudder, that is as you point out partly due to the design of training aircraft. However you will note there is a rudder on them therefore it is incumbent on flight instructors to teach students the use of the rudder.
Maybe the first few hours of training should be in a tailwheel airplane?
If, of course you can find enough instructors that can fly a tailwheel airplane.
You missunderstand why I am as you state angry, and it is really difficult to explain on a computer keyboard. So I guess I will just once again say flying training in my obversation is becoming dummed down.
And once more, nothing personal, just my obversations.
Cat Driver
First you will notice my three frowning faces were about pilots landing on the nose wheel, a clear indication of poor training. This phenomena is quite common everywhere, all one needs do is watch light aircraft land.
As to my being very angry about the poor quality of pilots being produced by flying schools, well I am not really angry, rather I would say I am disapointed.
The plus side of this for me is I have a never ending supply of students that require retraining.
As to the use of rudder or rather the lack of use and understanding of rudder, that is as you point out partly due to the design of training aircraft. However you will note there is a rudder on them therefore it is incumbent on flight instructors to teach students the use of the rudder.
Maybe the first few hours of training should be in a tailwheel airplane?
If, of course you can find enough instructors that can fly a tailwheel airplane.
You missunderstand why I am as you state angry, and it is really difficult to explain on a computer keyboard. So I guess I will just once again say flying training in my obversation is becoming dummed down.
And once more, nothing personal, just my obversations.
Cat Driver
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have followed this thread with interest as the subject of the quality of instructing today is near to my heart. The reality is instructing is an entry level job. I got my start in commercial aviation as an instructor and am proud to say I maintain my Class 1 instructor rating even though it is a serious pain to get it renewed. However I only do a bit of freelance instructing to people who are friends of mine. I would never be a full time instructor again because it simply does not pay enough and instructors are frankly treated like S*** by almost every one in aviation. It is unfortunate most flying training candidates do not understand the motto " you get what you pay for ". The irony ,of course , is I now have much more to offer as an instructor than I ever did when I worked the job full time.
I don't think things are ever going to change. Most folks are going to get their initial private and commercial training from a young, poorly paid , low houred instructor, now and for the forseeable future. IMHO the way to higher standards rests with the Chief Flying Instructor. In Canada , at least CFI's are rubber stamped by the Fed's. Yet I have seen the impact a really good CFI has had. If all those young instructors have effective supervision , and guidance from someone who cares you will get good instruction. I think there should be a profesional body that provides the CFI designation, and all Flying training units should have to have a proper CFI if they want to be approved.
That is my two cents.
I don't think things are ever going to change. Most folks are going to get their initial private and commercial training from a young, poorly paid , low houred instructor, now and for the forseeable future. IMHO the way to higher standards rests with the Chief Flying Instructor. In Canada , at least CFI's are rubber stamped by the Fed's. Yet I have seen the impact a really good CFI has had. If all those young instructors have effective supervision , and guidance from someone who cares you will get good instruction. I think there should be a profesional body that provides the CFI designation, and all Flying training units should have to have a proper CFI if they want to be approved.
That is my two cents.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
From: A PC!
Look out of the window - see where the horizon goes through the windscreen pillar/prop spinner - memorise that picture, relating horizon to rivets, clock, standby compass, cracks in screen, prop spinner whatever - but lose the "emotional crutch" of the fingers.
Alternatively, sneak a look in at the AI!
Alternatively, sneak a look in at the AI!
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
From: Usually Australia
I seem to remember, perhaps back in my days as a boy scout?? that a means of estimating angles was using finger widths. By holding ones arm outstretched the width of one finger represented one degree (or thereabouts) angular displacement between two points on the horizon (or above the horizon).
If one considers that most modern attitude indicators depict angular displacement in five-degree increments then one is able to interpret the logic in the method. After all in visual flight are we not teaching the student that the windshield replaces the AH (and being larger permits much more accurate adjustment of pitch).
On the subject of simulators I believe they teach early students to rely too much on instruments and therefore both lookout and accuracy suffer. Students who spend hours on ‘flight-sim’ games are the worst offenders. A clip-board over the basic panel is one approach I have used during circuit training to force offenders to look outside. There is a need for instructors to watch where students are looking to determine problems. This is an important tool (sorry Chuck) in the instructors bag to visualise the information that the student is using. If he is looking in the wrong place then fix it up and the problem will be solved!
If one considers that most modern attitude indicators depict angular displacement in five-degree increments then one is able to interpret the logic in the method. After all in visual flight are we not teaching the student that the windshield replaces the AH (and being larger permits much more accurate adjustment of pitch).
On the subject of simulators I believe they teach early students to rely too much on instruments and therefore both lookout and accuracy suffer. Students who spend hours on ‘flight-sim’ games are the worst offenders. A clip-board over the basic panel is one approach I have used during circuit training to force offenders to look outside. There is a need for instructors to watch where students are looking to determine problems. This is an important tool (sorry Chuck) in the instructors bag to visualise the information that the student is using. If he is looking in the wrong place then fix it up and the problem will be solved!
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver Island
Hey Dragchute:
No problem at all. I probably should never have made the comment in the first place.
I suffer from the same prejudices as everyone else and some things annoy me for no real reason.
Another handicap I have is I have been flying to long and am probably just getting to the point that I am not as tolerant as I should be.
However I do believe that flight training is not as good as it could be due to its being.
"simplified" "dumbed down" "catchy phrases" "to many acronyms" and mainly because the basics are not taught properly, nor understood by some instructors.
Lets examine some comments one hears, reads, about landings. " When you feel the airplane sink toward the runway."
You don't feel the airplane sink, you see it sink.
Another difficulty I have is how pilots are taught where to look in the final stages of a landing. A great number of instructors teach the student to look at the far end of the runway or further to judge the landing.
So lets examine where to look.
I am about to land my helicopter, lets say an R22 on a roof top helipad. When I reach lets say fifty feet above the roof top helipad would you advise me to shift my point of sight up to the horizon , or look a mile or two away?
I bet someone is going to come up with the "speed" thing so lets ask a race car driver doing 200 mph if they look a mile or so ahead of the car as they manouver past other cars?
Cat Driver:
.................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
No problem at all. I probably should never have made the comment in the first place.
I suffer from the same prejudices as everyone else and some things annoy me for no real reason.
Another handicap I have is I have been flying to long and am probably just getting to the point that I am not as tolerant as I should be.
However I do believe that flight training is not as good as it could be due to its being.
"simplified" "dumbed down" "catchy phrases" "to many acronyms" and mainly because the basics are not taught properly, nor understood by some instructors.
Lets examine some comments one hears, reads, about landings. " When you feel the airplane sink toward the runway."
You don't feel the airplane sink, you see it sink.
Another difficulty I have is how pilots are taught where to look in the final stages of a landing. A great number of instructors teach the student to look at the far end of the runway or further to judge the landing.
So lets examine where to look.
I am about to land my helicopter, lets say an R22 on a roof top helipad. When I reach lets say fifty feet above the roof top helipad would you advise me to shift my point of sight up to the horizon , or look a mile or two away?
I bet someone is going to come up with the "speed" thing so lets ask a race car driver doing 200 mph if they look a mile or so ahead of the car as they manouver past other cars?
Cat Driver:
.................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
From: Usually Australia
G'day Chuck,
I’ve been flying too long to mate. I’m only twenty-one but I’m trapped in this old body and can’t get out! Intolerant – I guess so but I try to suppress it. Things I have noticed about young instructors who are not trapped in old bodies:
Always in a hurry to log the next hour therefore the pre-flight and post flight briefs suffer. But they are closer to the student than we are because they were in the hot seat just a year or so ago and can often relate better.
Don’t have our experience but are often able to improvise. Not always the right solution but some improvisations are novel and worth developing.
Reluctant to seek advice from their ‘old bodied’ colleagues but if closely and unobtrusively supervised can be redirected by the auto-suggestion method.
Rules are often a hinderence to the next hour in the log book so they will circumvent the offending rule. ‘Old bodied’ instructors should therefore set high standards to make rule following ‘cool’.
As for what is the right spot to look during landing I guess we all teach differently with the demarcation line dividing the tail-draggers and the non-conventional types (baby boomers). I don’t always try to change a student if someone else has taught him differently and it is working for him. I do however like to know where he is looking so I can also perceive the information that he is processing and teach accordingly. If it isn’t working for him then he needs to change his ‘sight guage’. For the ladies replace he/him with she/her!
Mate, reserve me a spot up there on that beautiful island of yours. Somewhere I can fashion timber into wood shavings and occasionally walk out of the shop to glance skywards in the direction of a radial engine or some such. And maybe drink the odd ale with some other old intolerant aviators.
I’ve been flying too long to mate. I’m only twenty-one but I’m trapped in this old body and can’t get out! Intolerant – I guess so but I try to suppress it. Things I have noticed about young instructors who are not trapped in old bodies:
Always in a hurry to log the next hour therefore the pre-flight and post flight briefs suffer. But they are closer to the student than we are because they were in the hot seat just a year or so ago and can often relate better.
Don’t have our experience but are often able to improvise. Not always the right solution but some improvisations are novel and worth developing.
Reluctant to seek advice from their ‘old bodied’ colleagues but if closely and unobtrusively supervised can be redirected by the auto-suggestion method.
Rules are often a hinderence to the next hour in the log book so they will circumvent the offending rule. ‘Old bodied’ instructors should therefore set high standards to make rule following ‘cool’.
As for what is the right spot to look during landing I guess we all teach differently with the demarcation line dividing the tail-draggers and the non-conventional types (baby boomers). I don’t always try to change a student if someone else has taught him differently and it is working for him. I do however like to know where he is looking so I can also perceive the information that he is processing and teach accordingly. If it isn’t working for him then he needs to change his ‘sight guage’. For the ladies replace he/him with she/her!
Mate, reserve me a spot up there on that beautiful island of yours. Somewhere I can fashion timber into wood shavings and occasionally walk out of the shop to glance skywards in the direction of a radial engine or some such. And maybe drink the odd ale with some other old intolerant aviators.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver Island
Hi again Dragchute:
Yup, Vancouver Island is truly a unique place to live.
I hope to get to Aus. next year to do some flying with HARS, funny thing Aus. is the one continent I have yet to fly to.
Another thought on where to look when landing, try this.
Find yourself a high performance tail wheel airplane maybe a Spitfire or a Mustang. Then try wheel landing the thing by looking way down to the far end of the airport to judge your proximity to the ground. Or better yet find a Grumman Turbine powered Goose, that sucker will do the job just fine.... Why even I screwed up a landing once in the Turbo Goose.
When teaching wheel landings I have them do the curving approach to the touch down so they learn to keep the touch down point in sight at all times, makes wheel landing easy......
Cat Driver:
Yup, Vancouver Island is truly a unique place to live.
I hope to get to Aus. next year to do some flying with HARS, funny thing Aus. is the one continent I have yet to fly to.
Another thought on where to look when landing, try this.
Find yourself a high performance tail wheel airplane maybe a Spitfire or a Mustang. Then try wheel landing the thing by looking way down to the far end of the airport to judge your proximity to the ground. Or better yet find a Grumman Turbine powered Goose, that sucker will do the job just fine.... Why even I screwed up a landing once in the Turbo Goose.
When teaching wheel landings I have them do the curving approach to the touch down so they learn to keep the touch down point in sight at all times, makes wheel landing easy......
Cat Driver:
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,698
Likes: 1,304
From: Australia
Talked to enthusiastic chappie with total 15 hours in a C150. Subject was stall recovery from severe wing drop. I am sure he must have got it all wrong but he did say that his instructor had told him that if the aircraft stalls with the wind from your left that the left wing always drops and vice verca a wind from the right will cause the right wing to drop.
You learn something new every day in this game!
You learn something new every day in this game!
