How "hands-on" should an instructor be?
 

Hi all,
I've had to change instructors due to day-off issues and although I get along fine with this new bloke on the ground; in the air he is beginning to sap my confidence. I'm quite a long way through the NPPL course, approaching solo nav. I find that this chap unexpectedly takes control to correct me: usually just a stick movement or two, but I find I can let go of everything and the aircraft is flying itself! Yesterday I had to ask him if I had control again. We're flying a Cub so there is no visual with each other. Sometimes the 'I have control' - 'You have control' dialogue is used, sometimes not. Even when it is, he takes control much more than my last (older, more experienced) instructor.

Is this a fairly common scenario? If it's not how do I get him to stop? I'm a one-to-one music teacher and I know that one's style is a very personal thing and I don't want to give offence.

Any help appreciated.

Thanks.

It is absolutely essential that the FI uses the formal IHC/YHC handover! This should be instinctive for any FI.

Is this an inexperienced FI? If so, complain to the CFI. In fact complain anyway - he is behaving in a way which is ultimately dangerous and needs his ar$e soundly kicking!!

I 2 would go go with Beagle - dangerous for you and him.
How much an individual instructor does hands on will vary enormously and generally the more experienced instructors will tend to be more hands off, but you both must know who is flying the aircraft at any time.:=

Ditto BEagle and foxmoth. Go have a quite chat with the CFI over tea and biscuits. This needs to be nipped in the bud (assuming it's an inexperienced instructor) as soon as posible for everyones benefit.

XO

"Hands-On Instructor*
 

I agree with the other comments.
The phrase "I have control" is not optional.
Do not hesitate to take this up with either the instructor or CFI.
In the first instance, this is a safety and procedural issue.
In the second instance, you are the customer and you are entitled to better value for your money!

Hands off!
 

The instructor should take control only when it is absolutely necessary to demonstrate and explain but using the protocol already outlined.
You are the one learning and you should be doing the flying. Maybe a frank word directly with the instructor should happen first - could easily be resolved and a good relationship formed afterward.
His actions could be over enthusiastic. Make sure that he realises that his abrupt take-overs are sapping your confidence. If he dosn't respond then follow the previous advice.....................

Are we talking about wholesale control take over, or small prompts/restrictions on the stick, combined with guiding comments?

Even if its an experienced instructor then there is no excuse not to be taking control in the correct manner. There is the case that 212man says of a small input or restriction - but the only case I could think of where I might use this is TO/Landing when you may be able to correct a small error without fully taking control, at higher altitudes there is time for the students error to develop more without becoming dangerous and is usually a better learning experience.:=

Thanks for all your replies.

Prompts and restrictions with comments, yes, but a lot of the time and in upper air (on navex). Don't forget I've reached the stage of having started up, taxied out and left the area for PFLs and steep turns, rejoined, taxied in and shut down all solo; so I do know how to fly! :rolleyes: (This was whilst under my last FI.)

Not sure how the CFI/FI system works at this FTO. It's Weald Air at Headcorn and they're all career instructors with their own businesses.

Any error that needs correction, should be pointed out, and then correctecd in the propper way using the correct procedure, so that the student is aware of what is going on. You are paying for the hours. It is not about how well he can fly, it is about how well he can get you to fly!!

Small nudges etc may be OK at a critical phase of flight, but, where safe, the student should always be given time to see if he can recognise his own error and correct it. That way both he and his instructor know what his capabilities are! Does sound like classic 'new instructor' technique (or maybe old instructor who has forgotten)and needs stopping - should be picked up during his rating check rides.

"There is the case that 212man says of a small input or restriction - but the only case I could think of where I might use this is TO/Landing when you may be able to correct a small error without fully taking control"

NO!! That's very, very dangerous. The student might think it was a control restriction and overcontrol as a result. The ONLY safe method is the well-proven 'IHC/YHC' mantra.

Just print off this thread and pin it up on the Club noticeboard for the FI to read.

It's fair to say he does tend to do this at any phase of flight. :uhoh: There is a fair amount of IHC/YHC too - much more than I'm used to.

Whilst I agree this needs to be done with caution there are times I do not want to take it off the student, if I call IHC then he takes his hands off the controls, in the case for example of a student who is bouncing (mainly tailwheel courses), it can be quite effective to stop the bounce where it should be at the same time explaining "This is where you need it - you have control", because I explain WIHIH he knows what is going on and there is still the correct hand over back to the student who still has his hands on - a technique I have been using with no problem over many years when needed (though kept to a minimum).:cool:

I guess like all these queries, we are only being presented with one side of the story. It may well be (and on the face of it appears so) a case of a newby instructor who's a little unsure of himself, and is not as relaxed as he may be, over reacting to things. On the other hand, it could be you have been trained thus far by a slightly gash instructor who fails to correct where appropriate and generally lets you get away with anything, and your new guy is trying to correct all that! I'd bet on the former, but let's not all jump on him without knowing the facts.

Beagle, clearly at altitude the student should be allowed to let mishandling develop without intervention as far as possible, but surely to goodness when landing, the odd prompt "not too far back" with a slight restriction must be better than "IHC," or a little assistance with flare rate ("keep it coming up")? Essentially as Oldbeefer describes (and I think he may know a thing or two about instructing.)

I'm sure we all agree that it is preferable to let the student handle the controls as much as possible, and suddenly taking them off him at a critical moment is fairly hard on his confidence. Much better to debrief something that he has flown himself, but that you had to offer a little assistance with (and he is aware of.)

In which case it's "I have control, follow me through"!

One other case I may restrict the controls, this time done at height with a student who has consistently missed lookout before turning, here I will totally prevent the roll, often using a knee to block the movement (depends on aircraft), the first time the student will look at you with a puzzled look until you ask what he has forgotten, the second and third time he will twig on pretty quickly - very rarely needs more than three times before pre turn lookout becomes automatic.:}

Well, clearly you have never been involved in teaching helicopter autorotations or rejected take offs!

Surely, if you have a student who consistently tries to put the control yoke/stick in an inappropriate position, it is better to restrain the input and state "hold it there" (thereby helping the motor reflex memory) rather than grab the controls, say "I have control" and try to debrief the situation after landing, to a deflated ego?

Again, a silly and potentially dangerous thing to do.

Just take control, rebrief and hand control back to the student.

When I was a student in 1968, the instructor had a habit of trying to nudge the aircraft into a spiral descent with his knee. I got fed up with this, so one day I applied full opposite lock with both hands on the yoke, giving him a splendid bruise in the process.

Sorry, but there is no excuse whatsoever for interfering with the controls when the student is flying.

Well, clearly that's not a terribly useful and helpful method to employ, and is dificult to justify!

Grabbing the controls off a student at 10 ft and expecting him to then follow through and assimilate your actions, as opposed to a mild input with encouraging comment, is a different story!

Beags - try 'I have control, what you did was....., you have control' during the final stage of an EOL! If you did that every time, the stude would never do an engine off. They usually need a bit of help at the bottom to avoid bending the aircraft (which is normally pre-briefed along the lines of 'don't worry if you feel a nudge on the controls close to the ground'

OB, crossed with a PM! Tends to confirm what you've just said though!

Sorry Kevmusic for stealing your thread!

Totally with Beagle on this one - It's a case of "I have Control" rather than "Who has Control?"

At the end of the day, the instructor always has control: whether it's through the student or by direct action.

"IHC" is too coarse a method in some situations, from the perspective of student learning.

Who needs hands?
 

Never, never snatch the controls off any student at any time!
If at the hold off stage you decide that you must take control then this should have been agreed with the student before the approach was commenced. i.e. "I will allow you to continue the approach and the landing for as long as possible - should it be necessary for me to take control at a any moment I will do so and say I have control, but if I should take control in this manner please understand that I have left it as late as possible for you to correct any error yourself". However, doing this should always be a last resort but the student will now be aware from the onset of the possibilty and therefore maintain confidence.
Restricting the controls or nudging can only confuse. The student must always know that the feel and response to control inputs is theirs and theirs alone, if they are ever to learn. With regard to the approach and landing the student should be encouraged to identify errors and make their own decision to go around. Continously allowing the student to continue beyond their ability is not good and unwittingly will encourage a blinkered attitude such as continueing to a landing at any cost.

I was referring to the 'nipping it in the bud'. Of course, if it's an experienced guy, NO excuses whatsoever.

XO

212man wrote:
That's okay - I'm getting used to instructors taking over! :p

Seriously, this is how it feels on the receiving end. I'm in control. I think I'm doing ok, when suddenly the stick is moved, with accompanying words of advice and plummeting of self confidence. That happened at 2,500' the other day and after a minute or so with my hands and feet now off the controls I had to ask him if I had control. At the beginning of the same flight he'd briefed me on a crosswind take off, including full right (into wind) stick at the beginning of the roll. As I was about to apply full power for the roll the stick apparently wasn't over far enough because it was pushed an extra couple of inches with the words, "Full right aileron". This was before we'd begun to move. Stick and rudder were moved by him at some time during all phases of flight. I have about 12 hours solo including about 3 on the Cub, including crosswinds, and he's making me feel like a complete tyro. I'm really beginning to feel like I did at the beginning, years ago.

Have to agree that, in the circumstances you describe, your FI is not doing it right! Time for a word with the CFI I would have thought!

Old beefer,

There was once a certain Shawbury Whirwind QHI who was so "hands-on" after having given the student control he would do his own EOLs and then debrief the student. :rolleyes:

How "hand on" should an instructor be?"
 

The posting I am replying to reminds me of a relatively recent incident that involved me in renewing my Altiport rating for a well known French alpine ski resort. This was my 10th year of annual renewal. Let me say that I am a professional pilot with extensive experience on type and on many other types. I say this to emphasise that I am not an ab-initio student.

This particular check instructor had a habit of 'nudging' the controls either forward, or back, and also in roll mode without any prior warning, or clear intention. There was no standaer convention. Whilst mildly acceptable at a safe altitude, it became a serious matter on short finals where there was a real danger of a "who has control" question. Worse still, there was an even greater danger of an unintentional and potentially lethal wrestling match ensuing between me and the instructor taking place very, very close to the ground.

I terminated the flight myself by positively handing over to the instrctor accompanied by a very emphatic "you have control", and resolved never to fly with that individual ever again. As far as I know he never took the hint, as I found out some time later that I was not alone in my experiences

He was killed alng with his student in 'unexplained conditions', a few weeks later.

Shytorque
 

Not me, I hope!

I'm a relatively inexperienced instructor with only just over 1k instruction hours... but one thing I am so careful about doing is doing and flying to much for a student. Firstly it's there cash, secondly it defeats the point of learning. LET the student screw up... let it snow ball and let them see what the end result will be i.e. while teaching climbing at 2000ft, student climbs at an excessively high nose attitude and gets into a stall! I guarantee if you let the student see the end result it will stick in their head!

As far as mentioning who has control... that is so so so important, ESPECIALLY in a cub where you cannot see eachother. It really sounds like you should perhaps think of changing instructors. You are obviously not enjoying the flying as much as before, and THAT is the most important thing. I've always said instructing is 40% flying and 60% a combo of psychology, teaching, patience, etc.

To me, there's nothing better than being able to patter a student (who has never flown before), to take off the aircraft all by him/herself!

No, not you! ;)

Nor me; I let my student go all the way to the frange..... oops. :O

Stop press
 

I have taken the matter up with the senior instructor at the FTO (my old instructor) and I am changing my schedule so that my day off coincides with a time available with him. He has 'had a word' with my last FI and we have parted on amicable terms. I am officially back with my favoured FI. :)

Good for you Kev. Instructor should only interfere if not to do so would endanger aircraft/occupants. IE - no flare and about to land on nosewheel and possibly going around from low height from a PFL where the large power change and nose up trim can catch out an unwary student leading to high nose, high power, low speed.....

Hi!
well... my humble opinion as both student and wannabe instructor is that Mr. J.S. Denker couldn't be more right:
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/decision...nstructor-comm
Honestly I think, unless you screw up yourself, you never know what you are doing wrong.
And then... what about the "always ahead of you" guy? Yeah... that kind of instructor that over-coaches you all the way from block to block? It's really frustrating for me.
Regards / Pablo

A more light-hearted comment here... This was SO ingrained into me during my instructor training, that even when our engine failed during a 200ft AGL go-round, I still had the presence of mind to say...

"I have control...." ;) ;)

KC

The engine of the Auster I was Pu/t in, on my pre-solo check by the CFI, stopped at about 350ft on take-off....Aha! I knew what to do, nose down sharpish, trim, switches off, fuel off, land ahead.........

We were headed for a wood. Even as I moved the stick forward I felt the CFI shove it much, much harder as he said, very calmly "I have control". He was an ex-RAF Spitfire pilot and post-war RAF Instructor, retired. He carried out a very steep, diving 180, levelled and put it downwind on the grass. His next words were the other FI staple; "Don't do as I do, do as I say. If the engine fails on take off, get the nose down fast and land straight ahead."

We would almost certainly have been killed by the trees but for his actions. There are occasions when "Hands-on" is good. But I cannot abide FI's whose hands hover 2 inches from the controls during the approach and landing, especially on check rides. Either take control and explain why you're so nervous, or sit on them.

Hovering hands?
 

...hmmm, yes, I'd agree in principle. During my FI course we spent some time looking at the point during an approach where you might consider taking over. A student will never learn if you take over all the time but you want a) not to bend the aeroplane and b) have them suffer loss of confidence 'cos they can't get it right. I admit my hands DID hover the other day but it was the student's first-ever actual landing after only 4 lessons, made a good job of it so I'll back off next time. Generally, however, it's hands folded in lap. Students notice when you move them to just above your knees in anticipation!

I believe the RAF spend quite some time and effort in determining exactly where the turn-back point is for each aircraft type; there obviously is such a point but we don't teach it. I had a couple of friends in a Jodel a few years ago that suffered an engine failure at around 500' AGL and they successfully turned back, but they were both very experienced instructors. You're generally better off with the 'land ahead' deal as an SOP. Pushing is still the single most important thing to do to save your life in an EFATO.

TheOddOne

Drift alert!

I got myself into hot water expounding in Flight, eons ago, that every pilot, PPL and upward, of a single-engine aircraft should be taught how to calculate, for each take-off with weight, wind, temp etc factored in, the point at which it is safe to turn back after an EFATO.

Practising the steep diving turn and downwind landing should also be an essential feature of the basic SEP syllabus, once pilots understand when to use it and when not to.

Pilots should be taught to calculate whether they can safely land ahead after an EFATO at any point up to that height. If they cannot, they must positively change things so that they can, by reducing weight, start the roll from futher back if that's possible, or waiting for a stronger headwind.

If they do not do all that, all they are doing is hoping like hell that an EFATO won't happen, because if it does and they haven't reached the point where a turn can be done, their straight-ahead landing will probably be into a housing estate. And if they try the turn and have not been taught to do it properly, they'll almost certainly stall and spin in the turn and kill themselves that way.

Every time I hear ATC instructing a usually willing single-engine pilot to "use the intersection" I cringe, because neither seems to understand the danger. Multi's are fine, so long as the reduced TORA, TODA and ASDA are OK for them, but many PPLs appear to think that what's long enough for a B737 must also be long enough for their little SEP with 4 up, bags and a full tank. It isn't, if they have an EFATO and have to land ahead from 400 ft.

Alan Bramson called it "The Impossible Turn", and that's what I wrote against all those years ago. But it isn't impossible; it just needs to be properly taught; ie, when and how. The straight ahead mantra was fine when most airfields had fields all around them instead of housing. It's time now to stop pretending that it's OK to teach a procedure that will probably kill anyone who actually follows it assiduously.

Reliability is now so good that the probability of mechanical failure is very low. But what about human error?

Sorry about the drift!