Strange flight training practices
At least two people in this very thread have given "not going above 2000 - 3000 feet the reason for not leaning. Struth, words fail me. You should lean in the cruise at any altitude even at 500 feet. An accurate fuel flow gague would quickly show you the error of your ways. Guess you blokes aren't paying for the fuel.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Fate is the Hunter....10/10 must read. I might just have to read it again....but I get scared 
Bob.......90% and LOP
You can do 100% but there is a story that WON'T be going on here. 
Sorry for the thread drift folks.
Bob.......90% and LOP
You can do 100% but there is a story that WON'T be going on here. Sorry for the thread drift folks.
Just adding my 2cents from across the ditch:
1) I was originally taught what I think is now unfortunately the more popular idea that leaning is something you don't bother with if you're below 3000ft. Now I also believe that during my PPL training I was above 3000ft for possibly two or three lessons, so that goes to show how much training I was given on leaning! My thinking now however, which I do encourage in my students, is you should lean any time you're going to be in straight and level for more than a few minutes! For a moderately large flying school/club you could save thousands of dollars a year doing this. We also lean on the ground, which prevents the otherwise almost inevitable (in our aeroplanes at least) carry on of having to set more power and lean the hell out of the mixture in the runup to clear plug fouling!
2) To me the idea of telling a student where you're diverting to in advance is ludicrous, at my club we make very certain the student doesn't know where they're diverting to, and on at least a couple of occasions I've accidentally let it slip/been overhead and then gone and changed it to somewhere else to maintain "realism". Of course there is nothing wrong with having an airfield which you are planning on diverting to if you can't make your destination, that in itself is good planning, but that's also relatively easy even for a low hour pilot to do. The unexpected diversion to an unexpected airfield is where people catch themselves out.
3) To be fair we don't calculate fuel burn for the climb, however we do emphasise the fact that our hourly consumption figures are typically very slightly higher than the actual cruise consumption which helps balance it out. The consumption figures most commonly given are also normally based (at least at lower altitudes) on not leaning the mixture, for which refer point 1 above!
4) We have the Spidertracks flight tracking system in our aircraft which makes filing a sarwatch somewhat unnecessary (yes I know more people looking out for you is never a bad thing, but you do have to stop at some point!) however it is compulsory for all of our students to file a flight plan/sarwatch on their pre-PPL crosscountries so that when they fly somebody else's aeroplane (or the Spidertracks isn't available for whatever reason) they know what to do!
Another one which I have found is quite common in some of the so called sausage factory students is filing a sarwatch for the very end of a multi-leg journey "to make it easy" which is going to be cold comfort when you crash 15 minutes into the flight and no one comes looking for you for 5 hours.
1) I was originally taught what I think is now unfortunately the more popular idea that leaning is something you don't bother with if you're below 3000ft. Now I also believe that during my PPL training I was above 3000ft for possibly two or three lessons, so that goes to show how much training I was given on leaning! My thinking now however, which I do encourage in my students, is you should lean any time you're going to be in straight and level for more than a few minutes! For a moderately large flying school/club you could save thousands of dollars a year doing this. We also lean on the ground, which prevents the otherwise almost inevitable (in our aeroplanes at least) carry on of having to set more power and lean the hell out of the mixture in the runup to clear plug fouling!
2) To me the idea of telling a student where you're diverting to in advance is ludicrous, at my club we make very certain the student doesn't know where they're diverting to, and on at least a couple of occasions I've accidentally let it slip/been overhead and then gone and changed it to somewhere else to maintain "realism". Of course there is nothing wrong with having an airfield which you are planning on diverting to if you can't make your destination, that in itself is good planning, but that's also relatively easy even for a low hour pilot to do. The unexpected diversion to an unexpected airfield is where people catch themselves out.
3) To be fair we don't calculate fuel burn for the climb, however we do emphasise the fact that our hourly consumption figures are typically very slightly higher than the actual cruise consumption which helps balance it out. The consumption figures most commonly given are also normally based (at least at lower altitudes) on not leaning the mixture, for which refer point 1 above!
4) We have the Spidertracks flight tracking system in our aircraft which makes filing a sarwatch somewhat unnecessary (yes I know more people looking out for you is never a bad thing, but you do have to stop at some point!) however it is compulsory for all of our students to file a flight plan/sarwatch on their pre-PPL crosscountries so that when they fly somebody else's aeroplane (or the Spidertracks isn't available for whatever reason) they know what to do!
Another one which I have found is quite common in some of the so called sausage factory students is filing a sarwatch for the very end of a multi-leg journey "to make it easy" which is going to be cold comfort when you crash 15 minutes into the flight and no one comes looking for you for 5 hours.
Last edited by NZFlyingKiwi; 26th Jul 2013 at 06:46.
Bob; I think they mean no leaning because up to gfpt your never really flying straight enough or at the same altitude to be able to lean the mixture properly. Ie practicing steep turns, stalls etc
The other problem is a lot of folk are learning in Jabiru or Rotax powered devices with no mixture. When they move on to better power plants mixture is often skimmed over and the conversion training doesn't include any navigation.
Thread Starter
OK
Some interesting answers and many of them very accurate and true within limits.
Just to add some more context to the discussion:
- the student holds a CPL
- The student is starting a NVFR
- The student has already done 15-20 hours night training at this other school
- in my opinion, 15 minutes of circling to get up to LSALT (at 3 points) is enough fuel to add it into the flight plan.
How about this one:
- Studes on a solo Nav (PPL and CPL) weren't allowed to actually land at any intermediate waypoint but were instructed to only overfly.
I have heard of Ultralight schools only allowing "accompanied solo" but I had never heard of a GA school doing this.
- Leaning the mixture on a cross-country flight is normal and is a normal part of engine management. It can make 20-30% difference to the fuel flow or more, not the 1-2 litres some people (above) have suggested.
- The climb fuel thing: Yeah block fuel for Day VFR, fair enough. But not for Night VFR.
- Sartimes and flight plans: What does the ATOM say about PPL flight test conduct? CPL flight test conduct?
...If you are turning a student out as a PPL (let alone a CPL) and they haven't got the skills to lodge a VFR flight notification...
The Green Goblin:
All of that is true to some extent but if you are Night VFR and you don't count the 16 minutes of climb fuel AND you don't lean the mixture enroute, you will probably find yourself walking home (or more likely, never walking again).
KISS principle is wonderful but it shouldn't come at the expense of competent operation of the aircraft.
Some interesting answers and many of them very accurate and true within limits.
Just to add some more context to the discussion:
- the student holds a CPL
- The student is starting a NVFR
- The student has already done 15-20 hours night training at this other school
- in my opinion, 15 minutes of circling to get up to LSALT (at 3 points) is enough fuel to add it into the flight plan.
How about this one:
- Studes on a solo Nav (PPL and CPL) weren't allowed to actually land at any intermediate waypoint but were instructed to only overfly.
I have heard of Ultralight schools only allowing "accompanied solo" but I had never heard of a GA school doing this.
- Leaning the mixture on a cross-country flight is normal and is a normal part of engine management. It can make 20-30% difference to the fuel flow or more, not the 1-2 litres some people (above) have suggested.
- The climb fuel thing: Yeah block fuel for Day VFR, fair enough. But not for Night VFR.
- Sartimes and flight plans: What does the ATOM say about PPL flight test conduct? CPL flight test conduct?
...If you are turning a student out as a PPL (let alone a CPL) and they haven't got the skills to lodge a VFR flight notification...
The Green Goblin:
In the real world of aviation we try to keep things as simple and as easy as possible. (snip)... The engine is not going to fail because you didn't lean it. It might fail in time if you didn't lean it properly.
You're not going to run out of fuel because you didn't account for climb fuel on top of your cruise burn in a light aircraft. ...(snip)
You're not going to run out of fuel because you didn't account for climb fuel on top of your cruise burn in a light aircraft. ...(snip)
KISS principle is wonderful but it shouldn't come at the expense of competent operation of the aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FNQ
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, instructed for many years,was taught to a standard not a price.Then moved thru the ranks to instruct my self,taught to a standard and was asked to change my technique by a few schools.That ended my instructing life,but every CPL student received a copy of Fate is the Hunter on passing, to read on their long nightfreight flights
Always a standard not a price!
Always a standard not a price!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread drift? NVFR
It's been quite a few years since I did my M/E NVFR, but a CPL holder, continuing NVFR instruction, with 15-20 hours of instruction already, and still doesn't have the sticker in the book?
That doesn't seem right?!
Also, don't they teach how to get LSALT enroute? I know you can't always do that, but surely instead of planning A to B and having to spend 10-15 overhead A to get to LSALT isn't terribly efficient, when you could plan one or several intermediate points along the way with lower LSALTs? Same applies for night arrivals? Accurate fuel planning would still be important, in either of these scenarios! When the time comes to use the NVFR rating, you might not be able to take full fuel if its conducted entirely at night, or if you're just using it to extend your hours of operation, by the time you've arrived after dark and have to divert, knowing how much fuel you have would be fairly important?!
That doesn't seem right?!
Also, don't they teach how to get LSALT enroute? I know you can't always do that, but surely instead of planning A to B and having to spend 10-15 overhead A to get to LSALT isn't terribly efficient, when you could plan one or several intermediate points along the way with lower LSALTs? Same applies for night arrivals? Accurate fuel planning would still be important, in either of these scenarios! When the time comes to use the NVFR rating, you might not be able to take full fuel if its conducted entirely at night, or if you're just using it to extend your hours of operation, by the time you've arrived after dark and have to divert, knowing how much fuel you have would be fairly important?!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots (loose term) apply for entry level jobs in the industry.
A great many have an attitude of "I know it and I just need to get into the airline........dadadadadada"
On pre employment check flights they struggle with the absolute basics.
Put simply, training prior to employment is schetchy at best, down right pointless at worst.
It may be training and /or the person being trained but the outcome mostly is very average.
As a side point, if it is the person, I believe it is the instructor and the flying organisation that is responsible for adjusting the person and teaching the realities of the industry and of airmanship.
Operators then have a degraded pool to choose from. Operators carry the responsibility to then train the pilots, (note train and not retrain).
Who's at fault?
Flying schools?
Operators?
The person?
My guess is the monitoring and action to the syllabus.
All in all, a right pain in the arse at the end of the day.
A great many have an attitude of "I know it and I just need to get into the airline........dadadadadada"
On pre employment check flights they struggle with the absolute basics.
Put simply, training prior to employment is schetchy at best, down right pointless at worst.
It may be training and /or the person being trained but the outcome mostly is very average.
As a side point, if it is the person, I believe it is the instructor and the flying organisation that is responsible for adjusting the person and teaching the realities of the industry and of airmanship.
Operators then have a degraded pool to choose from. Operators carry the responsibility to then train the pilots, (note train and not retrain).
Who's at fault?
Flying schools?
Operators?
The person?
My guess is the monitoring and action to the syllabus.
All in all, a right pain in the arse at the end of the day.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The Last Resort
Age: 52
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better Power Plants
The other problem is a lot of folk are learning in Jabiru or Rotax powered devices with no mixture. When they move on to better power plants
The Rotax is a far better engine than any lycoming or Continental
The Rotax is a far better engine than any lycoming or Continental
Last edited by Oracle1; 26th Jul 2013 at 08:53.
Thread Starter
RatsoreA - mate the candidate's history is irellevant - but in this case they ran out of money and had a 12-month break from flying during their NVFR training.
Re: climbing enroute - you look at the ERC and tell me how you are going to depart Scone for Tamworth Night VFR "while climbing to LSALT enroute"
...oh and show me the bit in Jepps that says you can go beyond 3nm at less than LSALT? I'll give you a head start and refer you to page AU-807 para 3.6.11
Re: climbing enroute - you look at the ERC and tell me how you are going to depart Scone for Tamworth Night VFR "while climbing to LSALT enroute"
...oh and show me the bit in Jepps that says you can go beyond 3nm at less than LSALT? I'll give you a head start and refer you to page AU-807 para 3.6.11
Horatio,
Who ever said anything about not leaning the mixture enroute?
I said at a GFPT level burning around in the training area while learning to fly the aeroplane, i.e stick and rudder suff, leaning the mixture is not that important.
Just as when learning to navigate, it's not that important to account for climb fuel in an aeroplane that is burning 24 L/ph at best, and 44 L/ph at worst (depending on type).
Let's use your 16 minute example on a 'heavy single'. 60 L/ph cruise and 75 L/ph climb.
16 minutes at 75 L/ph = 20L
16 minutes at 60 L/ph = 16L
We are talking 4L difference to get to 8000ish feet if your performance is 500 ft/pm ROC.
On something like a 172 we are probably talking 2 litres difference.
I personally think the time (in your allotted planning time) is better spent reading NOTAMS, studying Australia's completely and utterly ridiculous airspace, weather, suitable, adequate and emergency landing points etc etc etc.
PS the aeroplane doesn't know if it's dark, over water, or flying IFR!
Who ever said anything about not leaning the mixture enroute?
I said at a GFPT level burning around in the training area while learning to fly the aeroplane, i.e stick and rudder suff, leaning the mixture is not that important.
Just as when learning to navigate, it's not that important to account for climb fuel in an aeroplane that is burning 24 L/ph at best, and 44 L/ph at worst (depending on type).
Let's use your 16 minute example on a 'heavy single'. 60 L/ph cruise and 75 L/ph climb.
16 minutes at 75 L/ph = 20L
16 minutes at 60 L/ph = 16L
We are talking 4L difference to get to 8000ish feet if your performance is 500 ft/pm ROC.
On something like a 172 we are probably talking 2 litres difference.
I personally think the time (in your allotted planning time) is better spent reading NOTAMS, studying Australia's completely and utterly ridiculous airspace, weather, suitable, adequate and emergency landing points etc etc etc.
PS the aeroplane doesn't know if it's dark, over water, or flying IFR!
Oh,
Just worked out you are talking about climbing to a LSALT prior to embarking on a NAVEX.
Well strike me pink.
I think someone who is learning to fly NVFR may have got a few things sorted by then, such as leaning, flight planning, etc etc.
It's called experience, you know, that stuff you can read about and gain without doing it,
Just worked out you are talking about climbing to a LSALT prior to embarking on a NAVEX.
Well strike me pink.
I think someone who is learning to fly NVFR may have got a few things sorted by then, such as leaning, flight planning, etc etc.
It's called experience, you know, that stuff you can read about and gain without doing it,
Last edited by The Green Goblin; 26th Jul 2013 at 09:09.
Thread Starter
Let's use your 16 minute example on a 'heavy single'. 60 L/ph cruise and 75 L/ph climb.
16 minutes at 75 L/ph = 20L
16 minutes at 60 L/ph = 16L
16 minutes at 75 L/ph = 20L
16 minutes at 60 L/ph = 16L
Flight time from Scone to Tamworth was 38 minutes. I am sure you would agree that the fuel required to circle to 6500 within 3nm (ie: going nowhere) would be a significant addition to the flight fuel required?
38 minutes cruise @ 24lph = 15.2 lts
Climb fuel @ (say) 32lph = 9 lts
Plus 15% variable = 27.6 lts
plus 45 min FR = 19 lts tot 47 lts required, plus any alternates and operational requirements.
This was a short leg with fuel at both ends.
I am sure you would agree the student should have been taught to calculate the correct fuel required.
The leg didn't need to be much longer to become critical and a "she'll be right" attitude to fuel planning is not conducive to a long life expectancy.
Night flying in a Single (espec a slow one) is one of the most dangerous things we do. YOU HAVE TO KNOW YOUR **** cos if it all goes wrong you have very very limited options
Re your re-post (above) - thank god for that I thought I was going insane.
THE POINT OF THE THREAD being that this person was AT BEST taught these dubious practices by inbred junior instructors at a school of Chinese-Whispers.
BUT NO: A Grade 1 instructor from that school has verified that these are the NVFR techniques enforced BY THE CFI.
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 26th Jul 2013 at 09:24. Reason: to add a maths lesson of my own
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotax powered devices with no mixture. When they move on to better power plants mixture is often skimmed over
but i have to agree with Aussie Bob, lean in cruise regardless of Altitude. how many of those students with the dont lean below 3000 BS go when operating from a higher and hotter airfield once licenced and Density alt comes into play?
then again, i have flow with some CPL's recently from other schools i would not give an RAAus certificate to.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hey UL
Lets not start a Old Vs New war
Now what is the vastly better BSFC of the Rotax V a good old Lycosaurus or TCM big banger?
Just coz i like ya I will give you a rough bit of help, based on the old 75% power comparison rate, The 912 is 19.2L/hr and my old dino-piston is 49.54L/hr so that is 2.58 times the fuel for 3.34 times the ponies
Lets not start a Old Vs New war
Now what is the vastly better BSFC of the Rotax V a good old Lycosaurus or TCM big banger? Just coz i like ya I will give you a rough bit of help, based on the old 75% power comparison rate, The 912 is 19.2L/hr and my old dino-piston is 49.54L/hr so that is 2.58 times the fuel for 3.34 times the ponies
Last edited by Jabawocky; 26th Jul 2013 at 09:32.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HLB,
I specifically said it wouldn't apply in every situation!
But, for example, the LSALT from YSBK TO YSCN isn't very much, and in a machine with sufficient performance, LSALT could be nearly reached well within that 3nm boundary. If you're heading to YSCB for example, that slight diversion off track (being careful of the control steps if you're trying to do this OCTA) means you're well on your way, climbing to the next leg LSALT while someone the other guy has just gained his height over YSBK.
Like I said, doesn't work with every flight/departure/arrival combination.
And the point I was making about the candidates history was that there are less scrupulous schools out there that do like to to teach to a price... Theirs. Not saying that's the case here, but it does happen.
But, I was agreeing with you, or I thought so anyways?!
I specifically said it wouldn't apply in every situation!
I know you can't always do that
Like I said, doesn't work with every flight/departure/arrival combination.
And the point I was making about the candidates history was that there are less scrupulous schools out there that do like to to teach to a price... Theirs. Not saying that's the case here, but it does happen.
But, I was agreeing with you, or I thought so anyways?!
A helicopter instructor accompanied me the other day in C414. Here in the US an instrument rating is a prerequisite for an instructor rating. He's preparing for getting his Helicopter Instrument Instructor rating. Flying with me he got to log his first ever actual IMC!
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 26th Jul 2013 at 23:58.
I think a lot of the chinese whispers originated when the wheel was reinvented and POHs were replaced with AFMs which didn't have any of the power setting tables etc.
EG when I first came here I was told all sorts of "one size fits all" rubbish about RPM and MAP settings..(don't get me started on the oversquare bulldust!) having flown Saratogas before coming to Aus I was astounded by this, then realised that the instructors really, really didn't know any better as they had no effective reference material other than "My instructor always told me blah blah" without any depth of thought..often just a thin veneer of knowledge that no amount of bling can make up for.
Similarly stuff about when to apply carb heat and turn off electric fuel pumps etc was "Over here we do it this way" and how the pommie way (as per the POH ) was all wrong and didn't apply in Australia.
This was decades ago but when I do AFRs I realise that nothing has changed.
The Day VFR Syllabus has it all there, but a lot of instructors seem to have never even seen it (student records often being a tick and flick exercise) let alone used it as a reference document. It doesn't seem to figure in Instructor courses, where it seems the only barrier to entry is financial wherewithal and not competency and ability to actually do the job.
EG when I first came here I was told all sorts of "one size fits all" rubbish about RPM and MAP settings..(don't get me started on the oversquare bulldust!
) having flown Saratogas before coming to Aus I was astounded by this, then realised that the instructors really, really didn't know any better as they had no effective reference material other than "My instructor always told me blah blah" without any depth of thought..often just a thin veneer of knowledge that no amount of bling can make up for. Similarly stuff about when to apply carb heat and turn off electric fuel pumps etc was "Over here we do it this way" and how the pommie way (as per the POH ) was all wrong and didn't apply in Australia.
This was decades ago but when I do AFRs I realise that nothing has changed.
The Day VFR Syllabus has it all there, but a lot of instructors seem to have never even seen it (student records often being a tick and flick exercise) let alone used it as a reference document. It doesn't seem to figure in Instructor courses, where it seems the only barrier to entry is financial wherewithal and not competency and ability to actually do the job.
Talk about bad teaching practices. Just about every flying school in Australia teaches the before landing checklist as "Undercarriage down and locked" even though the aircraft is a fixed landing gear aircraft. Yet you can bet the manufacturer's Pilot Information Handbook does not include this extraordinary check item. Nor does the AFM.
I am informed by a flying instructor at my local flying school that the reason for requiring the student to call undercarriage down and locked on a fixed gear aircraft, is that one day the pilot might fly a retractable and therefore is a GOOD THING to get used to.
I see. Then in that case should not the student call "undercarriage up and Locked" in a fixed gear aircraft for the after take off checklist - just to be consistent? Funnily enough I have never heard that used
I am informed by a flying instructor at my local flying school that the reason for requiring the student to call undercarriage down and locked on a fixed gear aircraft, is that one day the pilot might fly a retractable and therefore is a GOOD THING to get used to.
I see. Then in that case should not the student call "undercarriage up and Locked" in a fixed gear aircraft for the after take off checklist - just to be consistent? Funnily enough I have never heard that used