Finger Trouble in the cockpit?
Thread Starter
Finger Trouble in the cockpit?
Scene1 : Brand new CPL with 150 plus hours doing instructors course. Whiteboard briefing includes statement that for normal straight and level fly four fingers attitude. For slow speed 55 knots cruise fly one finger attitude. For go-around fly four fingers.The CFI maintains that using "fingers" is standard instructor teaching.
Don't get me wrong - I am all for innovative methods of teaching - but goddam "fingers"?
I can just see it now. Student bounces and goes around. Has left hand on pole and places four fingers above the coaming while ignoring the rapidly decaying speed caused by no spare hand to open the throttle or retract the flaps to go-around position.
Spin-crash-ouch. Court of Inquiry gravely puts down cause of accident to finger trouble....
What happened to instructor demonstration technique? Watch how I do this Miss Bloggs. Note the nose attitude with reference to the horizon in S & L, climb, descent, and go-around. Note the artificial horizon attitude compared to outside attitude. None of this childish "fingers" stuff. What on earth are some flying instructors up to nowadays - and what clot is perpetuating such nonsense?
Scene 2. B737 go-around raw data manual (shudder, horror) flying. OK Mr Second Officer - rotate to three hands, two fingers and a thumb (all engines going). One engine inoperative go-around? Rotate to one hand and a thumb only.
Don't get me wrong - I am all for innovative methods of teaching - but goddam "fingers"?
I can just see it now. Student bounces and goes around. Has left hand on pole and places four fingers above the coaming while ignoring the rapidly decaying speed caused by no spare hand to open the throttle or retract the flaps to go-around position.
Spin-crash-ouch. Court of Inquiry gravely puts down cause of accident to finger trouble....
What happened to instructor demonstration technique? Watch how I do this Miss Bloggs. Note the nose attitude with reference to the horizon in S & L, climb, descent, and go-around. Note the artificial horizon attitude compared to outside attitude. None of this childish "fingers" stuff. What on earth are some flying instructors up to nowadays - and what clot is perpetuating such nonsense?
Scene 2. B737 go-around raw data manual (shudder, horror) flying. OK Mr Second Officer - rotate to three hands, two fingers and a thumb (all engines going). One engine inoperative go-around? Rotate to one hand and a thumb only.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the fingers routine in training as well - it struck me as a bit odd.
Surely the attitude regarding reference point on the plane (coaming, cowling) with the horizon will vary according to how high the student sits! We don't all come in one size. And also....
Many women have fine, slender fingers.......then you could have a brickie with hands like shovels and huge fingers. That last sentence sounds a bit daft, but you get my drift!
It was the prescribed teaching technique, but I found myself memorising visually what the required attitude would be for each particular circumstance - then backing it up with the instruments, While the instructor chanted Lookout-Attitude-Instruments every 3 seconds into my right earhole!
On the other hand, in the initial stages of 'attitude' flying it must be fairly hard to convey exactly what is required to people. Imagine if they had you fetching out your vernier gauge! In which light, the fingers method appears a bit more commonsense.
My instructor did stress that the fingers routine was in there to give an initial rough idea of attitude flying and had no problems in dispensing with it once the attitudes had been learnt.
I liked your B737 scenario
Regards,
JH
Surely the attitude regarding reference point on the plane (coaming, cowling) with the horizon will vary according to how high the student sits! We don't all come in one size. And also....
Many women have fine, slender fingers.......then you could have a brickie with hands like shovels and huge fingers. That last sentence sounds a bit daft, but you get my drift!
It was the prescribed teaching technique, but I found myself memorising visually what the required attitude would be for each particular circumstance - then backing it up with the instruments, While the instructor chanted Lookout-Attitude-Instruments every 3 seconds into my right earhole!
On the other hand, in the initial stages of 'attitude' flying it must be fairly hard to convey exactly what is required to people. Imagine if they had you fetching out your vernier gauge! In which light, the fingers method appears a bit more commonsense.
My instructor did stress that the fingers routine was in there to give an initial rough idea of attitude flying and had no problems in dispensing with it once the attitudes had been learnt.
I liked your B737 scenario
Regards,
JH
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J-Heller is right. You missed the point.
Fingers are used to describe an attitude initially to give the student something to hang their hat on to - they havent seen the attitude before..they have to *learn* it. Learning it means *seeing* it, and also having a rough idea of *where* it is when they need to perform it for themselves. It is merely a teaching aid until they get the visual references ingrained in their heads...i.e. until they have learnt the visual picture.
Fingers are used to describe an attitude initially to give the student something to hang their hat on to - they havent seen the attitude before..they have to *learn* it. Learning it means *seeing* it, and also having a rough idea of *where* it is when they need to perform it for themselves. It is merely a teaching aid until they get the visual references ingrained in their heads...i.e. until they have learnt the visual picture.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FF is right - it's part of a process not the whole thing ! I do it like this -
1) Show the picture
2) Say that for me the horizon is about x fingers above the cowling
3) Ask the student how it looks for her/him - how many fingers if you like
4) Explain about different heights and importance of sitting at right level for good forward viz
5) Move the picture to show the difference
6) Put it back
7) Ask her/him how it looks for her/himagain - how many fingers if you like
8) Let the student do all that
9) Tell them to remember that picture as they're going to see an awful lot of it
It seems to work - though, centaurus, you could use centimeters instead of fingers just to make sure that the 737 doesn't crash ................
1) Show the picture
2) Say that for me the horizon is about x fingers above the cowling
3) Ask the student how it looks for her/him - how many fingers if you like
4) Explain about different heights and importance of sitting at right level for good forward viz
5) Move the picture to show the difference
6) Put it back
7) Ask her/him how it looks for her/himagain - how many fingers if you like
8) Let the student do all that
9) Tell them to remember that picture as they're going to see an awful lot of it
It seems to work - though, centaurus, you could use centimeters instead of fingers just to make sure that the 737 doesn't crash ................
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep Same way I do it. One very very important lesson just described above - if they get this right properly - then S&L becomes easier - and so on so does everything else after this point!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FormationFlyer and essouira, after reading your posts I am so sorry I didn’t have you as my instructors. 
I mean after 12 years of safe GA flying, I could have been using my fingers.
You can’t expect a student to learn about attitude flying with his fingers. It’s all about demonstration, why can’t instructors get it right. The whole instructor thing is becoming very sad.
What happened to good pilot’s becoming great instructors and so on. These days you get your Grade 3 straight after your CPL.
It’s too soon; your students are paying $30000+ for your knowledge and experience. Would you give a fresh out of school doctor $30K to do major surgery on your body, I think not.
Most of these new instructors are probably learning to fly as they teach. In my line of work, I get 1000-hour instructors wanting to move on in the charter world. You would expect them to be supper naturals. Well, I will reserve my comments.
I mean after 12 years of safe GA flying, I could have been using my fingers.
You can’t expect a student to learn about attitude flying with his fingers. It’s all about demonstration, why can’t instructors get it right. The whole instructor thing is becoming very sad.
What happened to good pilot’s becoming great instructors and so on. These days you get your Grade 3 straight after your CPL.
It’s too soon; your students are paying $30000+ for your knowledge and experience. Would you give a fresh out of school doctor $30K to do major surgery on your body, I think not.
Most of these new instructors are probably learning to fly as they teach. In my line of work, I get 1000-hour instructors wanting to move on in the charter world. You would expect them to be supper naturals. Well, I will reserve my comments.
Last edited by Prop's ????; 22nd Aug 2002 at 13:30.
Thread Starter
Just had an email from a fellow aviator on the subject of using fingers for elementary flying training. He made the following comments ;
How many fingers for a climbing turn?
Do we wear luminous gloves for night flying?
Do we sit on our hands in cloud?
Maybe someone could design a CASA approved inflatable hand to be mounted on the coaming for these occasions....with a standby manual reversion cardboard hand in case of loss of pressurisation in the inflatable one.
And on another matter of instructor teaching technique. Why is 15 degrees used for climbing turns in the circuit? Why is 30 degrees of bank considered a medium turn and 45 degrees a steep turn? Where did these figures originate?
I ask those questions because dusting off my treasured original of the USAF Manual of Primary Flying dated 1957 I see that in USA a gentle turn is defined as 20 degrees angle of bank. Page 32 says that the medium turn is one of 45 degrees angle of bank and that common usage of the medium turn is in the circuit and gliding turns. I can just see a new instructor having kittens if his student went beyond 30 degrees angle of bank in the circuit.
The USAF Manual goes on to say that steep turns are 60 degrees angle of bank and are used for rapid changes of direction, clearing purposes and maximum performance manoeuvres.
So why has there been a dumbing down of turn bank angles over the years in Australian flying schools when I learned to fly at Bankstown countless years ago we were taught the steeper bank angles as used in the USAF manual?
How many fingers for a climbing turn?
Do we wear luminous gloves for night flying?
Do we sit on our hands in cloud?
Maybe someone could design a CASA approved inflatable hand to be mounted on the coaming for these occasions....with a standby manual reversion cardboard hand in case of loss of pressurisation in the inflatable one.
And on another matter of instructor teaching technique. Why is 15 degrees used for climbing turns in the circuit? Why is 30 degrees of bank considered a medium turn and 45 degrees a steep turn? Where did these figures originate?
I ask those questions because dusting off my treasured original of the USAF Manual of Primary Flying dated 1957 I see that in USA a gentle turn is defined as 20 degrees angle of bank. Page 32 says that the medium turn is one of 45 degrees angle of bank and that common usage of the medium turn is in the circuit and gliding turns. I can just see a new instructor having kittens if his student went beyond 30 degrees angle of bank in the circuit.
The USAF Manual goes on to say that steep turns are 60 degrees angle of bank and are used for rapid changes of direction, clearing purposes and maximum performance manoeuvres.
So why has there been a dumbing down of turn bank angles over the years in Australian flying schools when I learned to fly at Bankstown countless years ago we were taught the steeper bank angles as used in the USAF manual?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more I read about how flying is taught by some of todays instructors the more I can understand the deplorable level of flying skills and lack of general understanding of what the hell is going on,, on the part of a whole lot of pilots today.
The dumbing down seems to be following the expected downward curve.
Dumb instructor teaches new instructor = dumber new instructor.
Then finally the truly dumb ones get into a position where they can instigate new methods into the curriculum = todays pilot pool.
Any attitude is taught and learned by looking at the attitude desired....period...
Once that attitude is learned and recognized that is what it looks like....period.
Cat Driver:
The dumbing down seems to be following the expected downward curve.
Dumb instructor teaches new instructor = dumber new instructor.
Then finally the truly dumb ones get into a position where they can instigate new methods into the curriculum = todays pilot pool.
Any attitude is taught and learned by looking at the attitude desired....period...
Once that attitude is learned and recognized that is what it looks like....period.
Cat Driver:
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get your finger out!
Point taken Chuck, but then not everyone flying today is a "Top Gun" either. I'd also be interested to see the accident statistics compared with the 1950's.
Having said that, private flying costs money - the students money. In the services, a student can be chopped as it's the goverment paying for it, but not so in civil aviation. There is the pressure to get the student through in bare minimum time, from both the student and the flying school (it looks better on the recoords). I'm not saying that standards are being ignored, but I'm sure that over the years, commercial pressures have a "dumbing down" effect.
Yes, I wouldn't have liked to see my students with over 30* AoB (particularly climbing turns) in the circuit because they don't necessarily have the experience at that stage to do so and the ground hurts.
In terms of "Finger Flying" to maintain a S & L attitude, I needed 7! Guess it's a good opportunity to see if I had the aircraft trimmed or not.
The Finger method is just a starter to help the student build a picture. (The instructor most definitely not be using the method except as a quick demo to the student) Not recommeded in the circiuit though, and by that time, they should have learnt the correct attitudes anyway or more area work for them.
To demonstrate the point, I used to cover the ASI on base with a "post-it" note, say to the student, now set the correct attitude. They would and we'd check the ASI (and most likely be out by a few knots). Next circuit, same thing but probably more accurate. By the third circuit, they generally had the airspeed nailed and trimmed to boot. Their approaches were better too because they were looking outside the cockpit. Worked a treat for their flying (and mine
)
Cheers,
LP
Having said that, private flying costs money - the students money. In the services, a student can be chopped as it's the goverment paying for it, but not so in civil aviation. There is the pressure to get the student through in bare minimum time, from both the student and the flying school (it looks better on the recoords). I'm not saying that standards are being ignored, but I'm sure that over the years, commercial pressures have a "dumbing down" effect.
Yes, I wouldn't have liked to see my students with over 30* AoB (particularly climbing turns) in the circuit because they don't necessarily have the experience at that stage to do so and the ground hurts.
In terms of "Finger Flying" to maintain a S & L attitude, I needed 7! Guess it's a good opportunity to see if I had the aircraft trimmed or not.
The Finger method is just a starter to help the student build a picture. (The instructor most definitely not be using the method except as a quick demo to the student) Not recommeded in the circiuit though, and by that time, they should have learnt the correct attitudes anyway or more area work for them.To demonstrate the point, I used to cover the ASI on base with a "post-it" note, say to the student, now set the correct attitude. They would and we'd check the ASI (and most likely be out by a few knots). Next circuit, same thing but probably more accurate. By the third circuit, they generally had the airspeed nailed and trimmed to boot. Their approaches were better too because they were looking outside the cockpit. Worked a treat for their flying (and mine
)Cheers,
LP
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck,
I always enjoyed reading your posts. Still do. You know a lot, and have given a lot to the forum.
Some of your postings recently have been a bit...well...full on! Three angry faces in the last one dealing with the use of fingers in initial teaching of 'seeing' the attitudes.
Really? When you have just written:
"Any attitude is taught and learned by looking at the attitude desired....period... "
I look at the above posts and it seems that you are not at loggerheads with anyone at all....wasn't it the general consensus that people were working at? - that the use of 'fingers' was only to get ab-initios started on some way of 'seeing' - in your words "looking at the attitude desired"
To be later dispensed with.....
"Period!"
All the best,
JH
I always enjoyed reading your posts. Still do. You know a lot, and have given a lot to the forum.
Some of your postings recently have been a bit...well...full on! Three angry faces in the last one dealing with the use of fingers in initial teaching of 'seeing' the attitudes.
Really? When you have just written:
"Any attitude is taught and learned by looking at the attitude desired....period... "
I look at the above posts and it seems that you are not at loggerheads with anyone at all....wasn't it the general consensus that people were working at? - that the use of 'fingers' was only to get ab-initios started on some way of 'seeing' - in your words "looking at the attitude desired"
To be later dispensed with.....
"Period!"
All the best,
JH
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I first started my PPL in a 152 out of a grass airfield I was taught when lined up on the runway for departure to position the control yoke so that I could lay 3 fingers flat between the hole the control lock goes through and where the column emerged from the instrument panel.
The effect of this was twofold:
1) It protected the nosewheel on the undulations of the grass whilst preventing 'wheelbarrowing';
2) The aircraft would gently fly itself off the runway at about 60-65 kts and climb at 65 kts.
In the early days it was most useful when I had enough to think about anyway. I would probably still use it if I instructed out of a grass airfield.
The same people who are objecting to the finger method are those who I suppose will disagree with using the 'rivets along the cowling' method of overcoming offset seating effect when teaching turning.
The point is that anything we as instructors can use to help others readily grasp what we're driving at has got to be good. What works for some might not for others, that's the interest in teaching! It is just one of many tools in the bag. If, as has been said already, your toolbag only has one tool in it, then you need to examine what you are doing.
The effect of this was twofold:
1) It protected the nosewheel on the undulations of the grass whilst preventing 'wheelbarrowing';
2) The aircraft would gently fly itself off the runway at about 60-65 kts and climb at 65 kts.
In the early days it was most useful when I had enough to think about anyway. I would probably still use it if I instructed out of a grass airfield.
The same people who are objecting to the finger method are those who I suppose will disagree with using the 'rivets along the cowling' method of overcoming offset seating effect when teaching turning.
The point is that anything we as instructors can use to help others readily grasp what we're driving at has got to be good. What works for some might not for others, that's the interest in teaching! It is just one of many tools in the bag. If, as has been said already, your toolbag only has one tool in it, then you need to examine what you are doing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O.K. Guys / Gals and those of you who are not sure what you are:
By now most of you know I try and post accurate info here.
That of course does not make me right all the time, nor is anyone.
All of you must agree that one of the most difficult tasks we as humans have is adjusting to change, be it in flying teaching methods or racial, cultural differences as society changes. We tend to flock together so to speak and generally retain subliminal prejudices based on our cultural, social and daily experience related learning environment.
I guess to some I may appear intolerant of others ideas and beliefes, nothing could be further from the truth. I read I comment I learn. I also try not to make my comments on a personal level. However I must admit it sure can be taken that way and you should take me to task.
Just a few more comments on the prejudice thing, I hate any bureaucracies because they are so inflexible and such a detriment to getting anything accomplished. However on a human level I would far rather deal with a corrupt official in Africa for the simple reason I understand the culture and the underlying reason for the corruption, the need to survive which requires money. Coming from that mind set I really have no problem with these people, the ones I canno't abide are the bureaucrats who hold us to ransom because they have the power to do so. So **** em I hate them.
But I do not have any animosity toward my fellow aviation colleagues, it is that I do get discuraged to see such a general low level of pilot skills and knowledge that seems to prevail in to days training, end products.
Now here is a time related and equipment fact.
When I learned to fly ( 1953 ) we had only tailwheel aircraft to learn on and the private license was a thirty hour course. Generally speaking most of us completed the course close to or at that time limit. And the accident rate as far as I can determine was lower.
Question?
Could that be because of better instructors and a less dumbed down method of teaching?
Oh by the way for an old burn out I have managed to adapt to new technology and have no problem working all the new fangled thingies out there like Airbus and its three laws of flight not to mention the pretty video game you play when you fly it.
So when I get to intolerable just tell me to get stuffed.
Cat Driver:
....................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
By now most of you know I try and post accurate info here.
That of course does not make me right all the time, nor is anyone.
All of you must agree that one of the most difficult tasks we as humans have is adjusting to change, be it in flying teaching methods or racial, cultural differences as society changes. We tend to flock together so to speak and generally retain subliminal prejudices based on our cultural, social and daily experience related learning environment.
I guess to some I may appear intolerant of others ideas and beliefes, nothing could be further from the truth. I read I comment I learn. I also try not to make my comments on a personal level. However I must admit it sure can be taken that way and you should take me to task.
Just a few more comments on the prejudice thing, I hate any bureaucracies because they are so inflexible and such a detriment to getting anything accomplished. However on a human level I would far rather deal with a corrupt official in Africa for the simple reason I understand the culture and the underlying reason for the corruption, the need to survive which requires money. Coming from that mind set I really have no problem with these people, the ones I canno't abide are the bureaucrats who hold us to ransom because they have the power to do so. So **** em I hate them.
But I do not have any animosity toward my fellow aviation colleagues, it is that I do get discuraged to see such a general low level of pilot skills and knowledge that seems to prevail in to days training, end products.
Now here is a time related and equipment fact.
When I learned to fly ( 1953 ) we had only tailwheel aircraft to learn on and the private license was a thirty hour course. Generally speaking most of us completed the course close to or at that time limit. And the accident rate as far as I can determine was lower.
Question?
Could that be because of better instructors and a less dumbed down method of teaching?
Oh by the way for an old burn out I have managed to adapt to new technology and have no problem working all the new fangled thingies out there like Airbus and its three laws of flight not to mention the pretty video game you play when you fly it.
So when I get to intolerable just tell me to get stuffed.
Cat Driver:
....................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Last edited by Chuck Ellsworth; 23rd Aug 2002 at 21:11.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Generally speaking most of us completed the course close to or at that time limit. And the accident rate as far as I can determine was lower.
Question?
Could that be because of better instructors and a less dumbed down method of teaching? "
Good point Chuck - interesting point, and a better direction for the thread to head in. Let's hear exactly how instruction is being dumbed down, and what are the forces behind it?
All views would make for an interesting read,
Laurie.
Question?
Could that be because of better instructors and a less dumbed down method of teaching? "
Good point Chuck - interesting point, and a better direction for the thread to head in. Let's hear exactly how instruction is being dumbed down, and what are the forces behind it?
All views would make for an interesting read,
Laurie.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J-H:
I hope a lot of ideas and suggestions are made now to see if maybe we can improve the flight training skills all over the world.
I will make one more suggestion and that is there must be incentive and incentive is partly driven by money.
Here is my suggestion:::
Give the student the choice of learning to fly at a fixed cost.
The instructor will be paid for every hour the student flys both dual and solo.
There will be no ground briefing cost to the student as the instructor will be motivated to ensure the student learns everything necessary to finish the license in the time frame required by the Government requirement in that country.
So lets crunch a few numbers.
Canada 45 hours minimum as per. Transport Canada.
Cessna 150 average cost ....Dual $ 130.00
...Solo $ 85.00
Now lets have a fixed cost for the license at say $6500.00
We divide $6500.00 by 45 hours we get $144.44 per. flight hour.
We pay the instructor $50.00 per hour the airplane and student flys.
The company now makes $94.44 dollars per hour for the Cessna 150.
Play with this suggestion and compare the average cost paid for students in your country due to excessive hours over the set standards and there is merit in my suggestion.
Of course there will be other costs involved, here in Canada for instance there would be ground school, but hey, you know what? You can buy a correspondance course for about $500.00 approved by T.C.
I will stay out of this discussion for a while and let all you keeners out there wrap your minds around a new concept for making a better living.
For Gods sake don't tell me you can't teach someone in the time laid out by your Government. I bet with incentive you would really do a better job and reach the required time frame.
I am also confident for every reason found that this is not workable, someone will figure out how to make it work.
Cat Driver:
Cat Driver
I hope a lot of ideas and suggestions are made now to see if maybe we can improve the flight training skills all over the world.
I will make one more suggestion and that is there must be incentive and incentive is partly driven by money.
Here is my suggestion:::
Give the student the choice of learning to fly at a fixed cost.
The instructor will be paid for every hour the student flys both dual and solo.
There will be no ground briefing cost to the student as the instructor will be motivated to ensure the student learns everything necessary to finish the license in the time frame required by the Government requirement in that country.
So lets crunch a few numbers.
Canada 45 hours minimum as per. Transport Canada.
Cessna 150 average cost ....Dual $ 130.00
...Solo $ 85.00
Now lets have a fixed cost for the license at say $6500.00
We divide $6500.00 by 45 hours we get $144.44 per. flight hour.
We pay the instructor $50.00 per hour the airplane and student flys.
The company now makes $94.44 dollars per hour for the Cessna 150.
Play with this suggestion and compare the average cost paid for students in your country due to excessive hours over the set standards and there is merit in my suggestion.
Of course there will be other costs involved, here in Canada for instance there would be ground school, but hey, you know what? You can buy a correspondance course for about $500.00 approved by T.C.
I will stay out of this discussion for a while and let all you keeners out there wrap your minds around a new concept for making a better living.
For Gods sake don't tell me you can't teach someone in the time laid out by your Government. I bet with incentive you would really do a better job and reach the required time frame.
I am also confident for every reason found that this is not workable, someone will figure out how to make it work.
Cat Driver:
Cat Driver
Moderator
The "fingers" method is useful in the very early stages to help them visualise the right attitude in the demo of straight and level flight attitudes, but after that there is no need for it IMHO.
As for limiting the bank angle in a climbing turn, this is to do with maintaining a rate of climb, if they turn crosswind with a bank angle of more than 15-20 in a PA38 or C152, it can lose a significant amount of climb rate, as can be demoed in the climbing lesson.
Agree though that there are a lot of misconceptions that new instructors take as fact. One common one is that full opposite rudder should be applied in a wing drop stall. and that wings level is more important than airspeed . Many are taught just to pass the test and have no idea how to teach, many are too inexperienced or immature to do the job well. But we all had to start somewhere, and it's the CFIs job to help them develop in the right way.
As for limiting the bank angle in a climbing turn, this is to do with maintaining a rate of climb, if they turn crosswind with a bank angle of more than 15-20 in a PA38 or C152, it can lose a significant amount of climb rate, as can be demoed in the climbing lesson.
Agree though that there are a lot of misconceptions that new instructors take as fact. One common one is that full opposite rudder should be applied in a wing drop stall.
and that wings level is more important than airspeed . Many are taught just to pass the test and have no idea how to teach, many are too inexperienced or immature to do the job well. But we all had to start somewhere, and it's the CFIs job to help them develop in the right way.
Thread Starter
Back to the original post about fingers. It is about gimmicks. Perception of nose attitude depends largely on how you sit in the seat. Some people are tall and some short. The number of fingers pertaining to an attitude may therefore vary. Some have short arms - others have longer arms and therefore the distance between the outstretched arm from the eyes will vary. Therefore the finger attitudes vary. Please do not treat students as a kindergarten teacher would treat small children.
Another case in point. Using a measured point on the control column shaft as a method of assuring lift off at the right speed or attitude is fraught with gimmicks again. Flying off at 65 knots in a C152 by using control wheel shaft measurement is nonsense. The POH states that on a normal surface you lift off at a set IAS which is 52 knots I believe. For a 10 degree flap take off lift off is 50 knots.
A similar example to the control wheel shaft theory which I was astounded to encounter recently, was an instructors advice to keep the gust lock hole just visible on the shaft and this will give you the correct amount of back pressure on the take off run in order to keep the weight off the nosewheel. Bloody hell - is there no end to this sort of teaching?
One hears so much superfluous and gimmicky advice from flying school instructors. For example: Flaps identified and up. Why does one have to identify the flap lever in a warrior or a C152? Yet another gimmick for the hapless student to ponder.
Another case in point. Using a measured point on the control column shaft as a method of assuring lift off at the right speed or attitude is fraught with gimmicks again. Flying off at 65 knots in a C152 by using control wheel shaft measurement is nonsense. The POH states that on a normal surface you lift off at a set IAS which is 52 knots I believe. For a 10 degree flap take off lift off is 50 knots.
A similar example to the control wheel shaft theory which I was astounded to encounter recently, was an instructors advice to keep the gust lock hole just visible on the shaft and this will give you the correct amount of back pressure on the take off run in order to keep the weight off the nosewheel. Bloody hell - is there no end to this sort of teaching?
One hears so much superfluous and gimmicky advice from flying school instructors. For example: Flaps identified and up. Why does one have to identify the flap lever in a warrior or a C152? Yet another gimmick for the hapless student to ponder.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus:
I tend to agree with your general sentiment that you cannot teach by numbers, but must take exception to your round condemnation of these 'gimmicks' (which is indeed what they are) which we can use to help a student visualise what he/she needs to in the early stages.
Assuming you do not use '3 fingers equals straight and level' or whatever process, how would you explain to someone how to select a nose attitude?
- Horizon 3 inches above the coaming? People's perception of inches is different (especially women and men!! )
- Pick a convenient dead bug and put that on the horizon? Next time the bug might not be there or the aircraft might be different?
- Use the AH or other instruments? Not a good idea in visual flying.
Don't forget, the teaching is a gradual process, ideally ending with the student able to make all their own assessments and decisions which is what we call piloting. If we can start them on the way and give them confidence by using these gimmicks and then refine the techniques as we go, then that surely has to be good.
To drum into a student at the first stage that the straight and level nose attitude is 4.5 degrees nose up or whatever and the cruising IAS is exactly 95 kts with precisely 2350 RPM set might be correct but could drive their appreciation and confidence down, actually slowing the learning process.
I, too, am strongly against the dumbing down of training and the present trend towards learning to pass exams rather than understand a subject, but I think we should be prepared as instructors to use ALL the tools in the bag to achieve that understanding. It didn't do me any harm to use the method I described originally to get airborne from that grass airfield, an of course I moved on to a deeper understanding of what I was doing.
I tend to agree with your general sentiment that you cannot teach by numbers, but must take exception to your round condemnation of these 'gimmicks' (which is indeed what they are) which we can use to help a student visualise what he/she needs to in the early stages.
Assuming you do not use '3 fingers equals straight and level' or whatever process, how would you explain to someone how to select a nose attitude?
- Horizon 3 inches above the coaming? People's perception of inches is different (especially women and men!!
)- Pick a convenient dead bug and put that on the horizon? Next time the bug might not be there or the aircraft might be different?
- Use the AH or other instruments? Not a good idea in visual flying.
Don't forget, the teaching is a gradual process, ideally ending with the student able to make all their own assessments and decisions which is what we call piloting. If we can start them on the way and give them confidence by using these gimmicks and then refine the techniques as we go, then that surely has to be good.
To drum into a student at the first stage that the straight and level nose attitude is 4.5 degrees nose up or whatever and the cruising IAS is exactly 95 kts with precisely 2350 RPM set might be correct but could drive their appreciation and confidence down, actually slowing the learning process.
I, too, am strongly against the dumbing down of training and the present trend towards learning to pass exams rather than understand a subject, but I think we should be prepared as instructors to use ALL the tools in the bag to achieve that understanding. It didn't do me any harm to use the method I described originally to get airborne from that grass airfield, an of course I moved on to a deeper understanding of what I was doing.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been pointed out, the idea is to get an idea across to a student, whether it be the correct attitude or a point of airmanship.
I totally agree that the position of the control wheel pole is irrelivant during take-off - it's about making the "picture" out the front right. You can use fingers, screws on the cowling, air vents (on Cessnas), compasses, or anything you like to get the idea across to the student. That's what counts. As pointed out, perceptions/perspectives vary from student to student. The shouldn't vary for a student every time s/he gets into the same aircraft.
The purpose of identifying the flaps lever prior to raising flaps in a fixed wing is to engrain in a students brain at an early stage that it important to do things conciously rather than automatically. Later, when the student moves on to an aircraft with a retractable gear, s/he will hopefully not raise the gear by mistake (as has happened so many times before, and will again). The validity of this is questionable, but the intention is to have the student think about his/her actions.
Centaurus - Just curious, are you an instructor?
I totally agree that the position of the control wheel pole is irrelivant during take-off - it's about making the "picture" out the front right. You can use fingers, screws on the cowling, air vents (on Cessnas), compasses, or anything you like to get the idea across to the student. That's what counts. As pointed out, perceptions/perspectives vary from student to student. The shouldn't vary for a student every time s/he gets into the same aircraft.
The purpose of identifying the flaps lever prior to raising flaps in a fixed wing is to engrain in a students brain at an early stage that it important to do things conciously rather than automatically. Later, when the student moves on to an aircraft with a retractable gear, s/he will hopefully not raise the gear by mistake (as has happened so many times before, and will again). The validity of this is questionable, but the intention is to have the student think about his/her actions.
Centaurus - Just curious, are you an instructor?
Too many spotty kids trying to make something simple appear complicated here, I fear.
Chuck is 100% correct. One shows the attitude for a particular phase of flight and then describes it to the student. Whether one uses rivets up the windscreen, fingers above the horizon or whatever, so long as the student can select, hold and trim the same attiude when given control, that's all that one wants.
Given half a chnce, I'd require any new FI to have at least 1000 hrs experience before teaching others. Very regretably, flight instruction is too often a method by which wannabee people-tube first officers (deliberate lower case) gain hours at the expense of others.
...and there is NO limit for the number of hours you need before you are immune from learning from others!!
Chuck is 100% correct. One shows the attitude for a particular phase of flight and then describes it to the student. Whether one uses rivets up the windscreen, fingers above the horizon or whatever, so long as the student can select, hold and trim the same attiude when given control, that's all that one wants.
Given half a chnce, I'd require any new FI to have at least 1000 hrs experience before teaching others. Very regretably, flight instruction is too often a method by which wannabee people-tube first officers (deliberate lower case) gain hours at the expense of others.
...and there is NO limit for the number of hours you need before you are immune from learning from others!!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle:
When you listen to all the neat little phrases that have come into play in the instructors vocabulary, such " another tool in my tool box " you will find that they are only slick sounding words with absoutely no meaning to the reality of flight instruction. It is evident that the instructor knowledge / skills are going down hill.
Just ride with the average new pilot today and it is evident that the basics of flight were glossed over.
Very few understand attitudes and movements,,,,almost no one has the vaugest idea of what rudders are for, except taxiing so how in hell can they fly an airplane accurately????
No wonder they land on the nosewheels, I am suprised they land more than once.
Cat Driver:
When you listen to all the neat little phrases that have come into play in the instructors vocabulary, such " another tool in my tool box " you will find that they are only slick sounding words with absoutely no meaning to the reality of flight instruction. It is evident that the instructor knowledge / skills are going down hill.
Just ride with the average new pilot today and it is evident that the basics of flight were glossed over.
Very few understand attitudes and movements,,,,almost no one has the vaugest idea of what rudders are for, except taxiing so how in hell can they fly an airplane accurately????
No wonder they land on the nosewheels, I am suprised they land more than once.
Cat Driver: