The rubbish taught by flying instructors.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Auckland
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well from the other side of the fence, I'm on the receiving end of some of the larger flying schools students coming to me for tailwheel ratings and I must say that the standard is pretty good at the moment.
I come from an ex mil background and I've seen some good levels of airmanship and sensible use of checklists by new CPL's and PPL's. I'm sure there will always be outsiders however, the standard seems to be pretty good from a procedures and stick and rudder level. No one has come to me saying this is how we did it at .... far from it, they have no problems in memorising checks (although there is not that much to check with one electrical instrument
)
So to all the instructors reading this at my field, all is not lost generally you are producing good pilots! Keep it up.
I come from an ex mil background and I've seen some good levels of airmanship and sensible use of checklists by new CPL's and PPL's. I'm sure there will always be outsiders however, the standard seems to be pretty good from a procedures and stick and rudder level. No one has come to me saying this is how we did it at .... far from it, they have no problems in memorising checks (although there is not that much to check with one electrical instrument
)So to all the instructors reading this at my field, all is not lost generally you are producing good pilots! Keep it up.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wombat...well said mate....it,s not all ...Doom and Gloom.....most of us appreciate what you blokes do for sure.
.......what I thinks ia a good looking ewe is somebody elses slag....everybody has a bloody opinion
PB
.......what I thinks ia a good looking ewe is somebody elses slag....everybody has a bloody opinion PB
Would you listen to some of the crap dealt out by our friends on the comercial pilots front here. Funnily enough even a green CPL pilot flying a 185 experiences the same point milehigsociety so quickly generalised among instructors......
Simply everyone is entitled to their opinion but seriously some people need to pull their heads in. Alot of people as inexperienced pilots make great instructors and have good knowledge and common sense (which is generally the point milehighsociety was bringing up about instructors). Alot of CPL pilots make poor instructors. There are others.. and well lets just say they have the bare minimums. Hell even in CAR217 operations you still get the odd twit.
Generalise all you want. Lets start a threat about "the rubbish done by CPL pilots during commercial operations......"
Vernake vaka levu
Simply everyone is entitled to their opinion but seriously some people need to pull their heads in. Alot of people as inexperienced pilots make great instructors and have good knowledge and common sense (which is generally the point milehighsociety was bringing up about instructors). Alot of CPL pilots make poor instructors. There are others.. and well lets just say they have the bare minimums. Hell even in CAR217 operations you still get the odd twit.
Generalise all you want. Lets start a threat about "the rubbish done by CPL pilots during commercial operations......"
Vernake vaka levu
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAHHAHAHAHA... BULA... well said. You hit the nail on the head.
Im just having a gripe because Ive just trained up 4 pilots, 3 of whom were more than capable, yet taught utter nonsense.
Next week Ill have a gripe about the experienced guy that screwed it up.
Having said that, its still a valid point. Instructors with no experience cant be expected to teach something they themselves havnt learnt. Simple as that. Its not a dig at anyone in particular, but GA flying school teaching GA pilots who mention nothing of prop damage on taxying, nothing on a reasonable top of decent selection... etc etc... very very basic parts of aviation.
Little less oil pressure there mate, not necessary. Im not out to offend, but hopefully a few instructors may have read my thread and though to themselves that maybe they should be teaching some of these things. It makes them a better instructor you know.
Im not taking the piss.. Im not out to offend. Just bringing a valid point to light.
Im just having a gripe because Ive just trained up 4 pilots, 3 of whom were more than capable, yet taught utter nonsense.
Next week Ill have a gripe about the experienced guy that screwed it up.
Having said that, its still a valid point. Instructors with no experience cant be expected to teach something they themselves havnt learnt. Simple as that. Its not a dig at anyone in particular, but GA flying school teaching GA pilots who mention nothing of prop damage on taxying, nothing on a reasonable top of decent selection... etc etc... very very basic parts of aviation.
Little less oil pressure there mate, not necessary. Im not out to offend, but hopefully a few instructors may have read my thread and though to themselves that maybe they should be teaching some of these things. It makes them a better instructor you know.
Im not taking the piss.. Im not out to offend. Just bringing a valid point to light.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus
With all of your instructing and experience with simulators what is the worst rubbish you have perpetuted as an SOP?
You will recall the former CO of CFS who hadn't a clue on the use of wheel brakes and repeatedly took brake units to actual and near destruct.
Then there is the abysmal level of general knowledge on prop control via a Constant Speed Unit, CSU. Many still consider it as a prop pitch control instead of a device to select RPM.
Many myths came out of the rush of training and operating during WW2.
With all of your instructing and experience with simulators what is the worst rubbish you have perpetuted as an SOP?
You will recall the former CO of CFS who hadn't a clue on the use of wheel brakes and repeatedly took brake units to actual and near destruct.
Then there is the abysmal level of general knowledge on prop control via a Constant Speed Unit, CSU. Many still consider it as a prop pitch control instead of a device to select RPM.
Many myths came out of the rush of training and operating during WW2.
.. especially considering the state of first GA jobs aroud the place... but we wont go there.
Thread Starter
Milt. Back in our days we used to learn on the job how to burn out the brakes on Wirraways when the brakes were jagging or binding. In later years I wondered if this was a good idea or not - or whether perhaps the brake clearances or maintenance were faulty in the first place.
I stood a Wirraway on it's nose at Darwin while taxiing very slowly indeed. The brakes had locked with just a tiny touch of the pedals. Bull McMahon crucified me for that. A few weeks later after a new prop was installed, he asked Paul Jessop (who was in Darwin on tropical trials with a Winjeel derivative) to test fly the Wirraway I had bent.
Paul had only gone a few yards when he very nearly put the Wirra on its nose again. He grounded the Wirra pending investigations of the servicing of the brakes and it was discovered the CAC Wirraway Maintenance Manual brake tolerances were quite different from it's equivalent RAAF manual with the RAAF manual being wrong. Surprises all around and I was cleared of pilot error.
Around three years later, Herb Plenty scrubbed a student at I AFTS after the unfortunate chap stood a Wirra on its nose while applying the brakes during landing. A bit unfair I thought but Herb didn't take prisoners innocent or guilty.
This partially explains a myth perpetuated about burning out Wirraway brakes which has stood for decades. Ask any Wirra pilot.
I stood a Wirraway on it's nose at Darwin while taxiing very slowly indeed. The brakes had locked with just a tiny touch of the pedals. Bull McMahon crucified me for that. A few weeks later after a new prop was installed, he asked Paul Jessop (who was in Darwin on tropical trials with a Winjeel derivative) to test fly the Wirraway I had bent.
Paul had only gone a few yards when he very nearly put the Wirra on its nose again. He grounded the Wirra pending investigations of the servicing of the brakes and it was discovered the CAC Wirraway Maintenance Manual brake tolerances were quite different from it's equivalent RAAF manual with the RAAF manual being wrong. Surprises all around and I was cleared of pilot error.
Around three years later, Herb Plenty scrubbed a student at I AFTS after the unfortunate chap stood a Wirra on its nose while applying the brakes during landing. A bit unfair I thought but Herb didn't take prisoners innocent or guilty.
This partially explains a myth perpetuated about burning out Wirraway brakes which has stood for decades. Ask any Wirra pilot.
I am sure you have seen oxy acetylene in use...or the air vents around a oil lamp or gas cooker...the same theory applies. If you have seen these at work you have seen a lazy dirty red/yellow flame become a blue jet of pure heat energy when oxygen is added....when the mixture is leaned.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Gate 69
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown C182, C210, Be36, C310 and Be58 all at the same time (not literally of course) and I used the same mental checklist for all of them. It just made it easier. When it came to “Gear”, I just thought “Fixed” or “Down and Green”. Likewise “Fuel: Sufficient, Correct Tank Selected, and Pump On or N/A”. And I never (fortunately) had the same problem as a previous pilot when jumping from the C182 to the C210. 
Later while working at another company, and still using the same mental checklist for a pressurized twin, a new CP tried to introduce a “checklist”. It was 17 pages of bull
. Everything from “Landing lights: On for Night” and “Gear: Select Down. Check for Three Greens”. It was too long, too slow, and distracted us from the actual flying of the aircraft. It should have been just one word reminders like: Gear, Flap, Lights etc.
Moving onto the two crew world I discovered Flows (some call them Drills) and Checklist. Which is pretty much what I had been doing all along, but now with the PNF reading a Checklist to see that the PF had done everything, instead of me doing this in my head. I now fly a large jet and it has 52 items in total, from Before Start to Secure, and it fits all nicely on a narrow, double sided, piece of laminated card.
There is no need to over complicate checklist. Just include the REALLY important things that are either going to kill you or cost your company a lot of money. Like my old instructor said, “Just put the aircraft in the configuration it should be in for that phase of flight”.
As for other things taught by instructors that really shouldn’t be:
While sitting in the rear of the classroom, filling out the paperwork for my MECIR (back in the days I had to pay for it myself
), I heard an instructor explain “It is the up going aileron that causes drag, and thus yaw, during a turn. That is way we need rudder to balance the turn.” I thought about it for a sec and thought, will I or won’t I? I decided this type of thing had to be corrected for the poor student’s sake. So I asked “If that is the case and I am banking left, then why do I use left rudder and not right rudder to correct for roll induced yaw?”. I then had to explain why. What hope do new pilots have if SOME instructors teach such rubbish?
And for the record:
Attitude controls the Flightpath. Power (and Drag) control the Speed.
In the aircraft I fly now a 1.5 Degree Nose Up Attitude and about 1.18 EPR will have you sitting on an ILS nicely. If you are slow you increase the EPR (i.e. Power). You don’t lower the nose. Likewise if I am getting below G/S, I increase (raise if you prefer) the Attitude, not increase the Power. Yes reducing power will cause you to change flightpath, but only because to maintain speed you have to lower the nose. It is a secondary effect. Just like the secondary effort of roll is yaw. We don’t go teaching students that you control yaw with aileron do we?
Later while working at another company, and still using the same mental checklist for a pressurized twin, a new CP tried to introduce a “checklist”. It was 17 pages of bull
. Everything from “Landing lights: On for Night” and “Gear: Select Down. Check for Three Greens”. It was too long, too slow, and distracted us from the actual flying of the aircraft. It should have been just one word reminders like: Gear, Flap, Lights etc.Moving onto the two crew world I discovered Flows (some call them Drills) and Checklist. Which is pretty much what I had been doing all along, but now with the PNF reading a Checklist to see that the PF had done everything, instead of me doing this in my head. I now fly a large jet and it has 52 items in total, from Before Start to Secure, and it fits all nicely on a narrow, double sided, piece of laminated card.
There is no need to over complicate checklist. Just include the REALLY important things that are either going to kill you or cost your company a lot of money. Like my old instructor said, “Just put the aircraft in the configuration it should be in for that phase of flight”.
As for other things taught by instructors that really shouldn’t be:
While sitting in the rear of the classroom, filling out the paperwork for my MECIR (back in the days I had to pay for it myself
), I heard an instructor explain “It is the up going aileron that causes drag, and thus yaw, during a turn. That is way we need rudder to balance the turn.” I thought about it for a sec and thought, will I or won’t I? I decided this type of thing had to be corrected for the poor student’s sake. So I asked “If that is the case and I am banking left, then why do I use left rudder and not right rudder to correct for roll induced yaw?”. I then had to explain why. What hope do new pilots have if SOME instructors teach such rubbish?And for the record:
Attitude controls the Flightpath. Power (and Drag) control the Speed.
In the aircraft I fly now a 1.5 Degree Nose Up Attitude and about 1.18 EPR will have you sitting on an ILS nicely. If you are slow you increase the EPR (i.e. Power). You don’t lower the nose. Likewise if I am getting below G/S, I increase (raise if you prefer) the Attitude, not increase the Power. Yes reducing power will cause you to change flightpath, but only because to maintain speed you have to lower the nose. It is a secondary effect. Just like the secondary effort of roll is yaw. We don’t go teaching students that you control yaw with aileron do we?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: EGBJ Gloucester
Age: 40
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok a couple of people here have mentioned that power=airspeed, attitude=rate of descent (or climb of cou
rse). This is *exactly* the opposite to what I have been taught: my instructor, the JAR PPL books by Jeremy Pratt, and "Stick and Rudder" by Langwiesche all teach power=rate of descent, attitude=airspeed.
As far as I knew up until this point this was the 'correct' way to look at it. What's going on?!
rse). This is *exactly* the opposite to what I have been taught: my instructor, the JAR PPL books by Jeremy Pratt, and "Stick and Rudder" by Langwiesche all teach power=rate of descent, attitude=airspeed.
As far as I knew up until this point this was the 'correct' way to look at it. What's going on?!
Grandpa Aerotart
The difference is big aeroplane or little aeroplane...the way you were taught is perfectly fine for light aircraft but would cause a crash in a heavy jet on approach to land.
The 767 I fly can be as heavy as 136000kg on touchdown..that is a crap load of momentum to steer around...if I was 5kts slow on approach and merely lowered the nose I would develope a huge ROD before the speed increased...if I was 5kts fast and raised the nose it would take a relatively long time at a vastly reduced ROD to slow down..as an example it takes 1nm to lose 10kts flying level at typical weights with the thrust levers at idle.
Also in swept wing jets you tend to be approaching to land fairly far back in the drag curve...no drama as you have shedloads of thrust available if you need...but this tends to make the situation worse.
If I am low on approach and simply add thrust I will accelerate but the momentum is such that I will just go low faster. Instead if I raise the nose slightly the flight path will change instantly but the huge momentum means the airspeed won't...of course it will eventually so I may need to tweak the thrust too...'eventually' is the key word.
All said and done none of the above is conducive to a precisely flown ILS if you fly the aeroplane Cessna fashion.
As a result we fly thrust for speed and attitude for flight path on approach.
The 767 I fly can be as heavy as 136000kg on touchdown..that is a crap load of momentum to steer around...if I was 5kts slow on approach and merely lowered the nose I would develope a huge ROD before the speed increased...if I was 5kts fast and raised the nose it would take a relatively long time at a vastly reduced ROD to slow down..as an example it takes 1nm to lose 10kts flying level at typical weights with the thrust levers at idle.
Also in swept wing jets you tend to be approaching to land fairly far back in the drag curve...no drama as you have shedloads of thrust available if you need...but this tends to make the situation worse.
If I am low on approach and simply add thrust I will accelerate but the momentum is such that I will just go low faster. Instead if I raise the nose slightly the flight path will change instantly but the huge momentum means the airspeed won't...of course it will eventually so I may need to tweak the thrust too...'eventually' is the key word.
All said and done none of the above is conducive to a precisely flown ILS if you fly the aeroplane Cessna fashion.
As a result we fly thrust for speed and attitude for flight path on approach.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magnetos
Whats with checking magnetos is it just me or if your mags arent on, wont the prop be stopped or suppprisingly slow and wouldnt there be an eerie silence! my pre- landings are BUMFISH - Brakes-Undercarriage-Mixture-Fuel-Instruments-Switches-Hatches and harnesses. Makes alot more sense than checking your mags!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: EGBJ Gloucester
Age: 40
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu - thanks.
MCKES - my prelanding check includes mag's, but the check is for both, not just on, as it should be obvious if they're both off as you say!
MCKES - my prelanding check includes mag's, but the check is for both, not just on, as it should be obvious if they're both off as you say!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
The 767 I fly can be as heavy as 136000kg on touchdown..that is a crap load of momentum to steer around...if I was 5kts slow on approach and merely lowered the nose I would develope a huge ROD before the speed increased...if I was 5kts fast and raised the nose it would take a relatively long time at a vastly reduced ROD to slow down..as an example it takes 1nm to lose 10kts flying level at typical weights with the thrust levers at idle.
I've actually found that flying the approach in a 757/767 is a little more instinctive (whether its at MLW 757 90K or 767 136K) as the thrust/pitch couple keeps you honest, more so than trying to nail the attitude for speed....and then adjusting the pitch for a ROD, or moving the visual picture to achieve the correct approach angle.
My lightie DVR's
Pre Take-off
TMFIHC (too many flying Instructors have crashes)
Trim, Mixture (prop), Fuel + Flaps, Instruments, Harnesses + Hatches, Controls
Downwind
Bumfhish (as the previous poster)
Finals
CUP
Cowl Flaps (closed), Undercart, propellor (full fine)
Used these DVA's on various piston singles, multis, and single + Multi -turbines
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Usually Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correction
Read Deakins articles on Whyalla and see how badly ATSB did on that investigation. Had that young man had the benefit of the aircraft being fitted with all cylinder monitors, balanced injectors and the knowledge to use them he would probably be alive today...as would his passengers.
An article titled Lean and Mean - Flight Safety Australia, January-February 2001 page 23 advises “caution … when reading articles written by well-meaning enthusiasts. A recent internet article promoting lean of peak mixture leaning, whilst extremely well researched and written, did result in hair pulling responses by engineers and engine manufacturers.”
Somewhere in between lays the balance.
Given the age of these engines and the developments of technology since their manufacture regulators, managers and trainers should be in a position to develop operating procedures that are in accordance with appropriately STC’d modifications, if the operator chooses to go down the performance path, rather than much of the unwritten variations on SOP’s that seem to be directed to line pilots.
Of course when operating such engines to the limit the operator should ensure that the maintenance program encompasses all the parameters for healthy engines (magneto, plug, leads, baffles, induction, fuel, exhaust, and gauging systems) to minimize the possibility of pre-ignition or detonation when operating in those limiting regimes.
Just my two cents worth!