47-year old C150 damaged in Moorabbin accident

[training wheels]

Originally Posted by 43Inches

Not so long ago where I started instructing the average hours for solo was somewhere just under 10 with some soloing at 6-8 hours. Basically you went from no experience to solo in that time, and that was before the advent of mass use of PC flight simulators by the beginners. I would guess since CASA mandated that Pipers and Cessnas were modified to be more difficult to fly the average hours must be around 15-20 for solo.

I've found PC flight simulators to be more of a hindrance than a help at the ab-initio stages of instruction, as student pilots tend to focus too much on the instruments than looking outside visually for the correct attitude. This might explain why it's taking longer for students to solo these days compared to the pre-computer age.

And plus, many try to land the real aircraft like they do with their PC computer game with no 'feel' for the sink and application of back pressure on the control column. They start off by trying to plonk the aircraft down three wheels on to the runway.

So, as an instructor, you start off by un-teaching bad habits where as before, back in our pre-computer days, you start off teaching students from a clean slate.

[43Inches]

So, as an instructor, you start off by un-teaching bad habits where as before, back in our pre-computer days, you start off teaching students from a clean slate.

Very true.

The original statement was not a serious one. It was more aimed at why have training times increased dramatically despite modern technology and training philosophies. What is more interesting is that the rate of accidents has not changed, and fatal accidents have increased slightly despite GA flying slightly decreasing. Serious incidents are increasing at quite a high rate (all statistical data can be found on the ATSB site).

I am intrigued, how did CASA mandate making Cessna's and Pipers more difficult to fly ?? what changes to the Type Certificate ??

They modified light aircraft with competency based training which led to instructors assessing students rather than training them, if improperly implemented. Although the aircraft did not change, the flying training component required to achieve solo increased. In essence the aircraft must have become harder to fly because the training times suddenly started to increase as a result.

[T28D]

I think this is an amazing statement


"essence the aircraft must have become harder to fly because"


So the methodology used in training changes to competency based assessment and the "aircraft" become harder to fly.


I must be missing something, how does training methodology affect the difficulty involved in flying the aircraft, ANY aircraft ??????????

[Wally Mk2]

I'm not in the instructing side of things but having soloed in around 8 hrs in a C150 it was all about covering the syllabus at the time & showing an ability, is that not the same today?
It takes longer to competently train up someone to fly R/C toys planes these days.


Wmk2

[garrya100]

I fail to see how curriculum based training that states you have to do xx hours can produce a safer pilot than competency based training. Competency is all about training to a standard. If you don't yet meet the standard, you need more training.

Why should Joe have to spend say 2 hrs learning to fly straight and level because the book says he has to if he's got it worked out in 30mins? That's goes against all adrogogy theory which states successful adult learning requires a reward system as opposed to rote learning.

The PPL syllabus is all written to meet a minimum standard and has a minimum hour requirement as it stands. Surely a quality instructor is the best person to judge whether somebody is competent rather then 'book hours'

[Centaurus]

I've found PC flight simulators to be more of a hindrance than a help at the ab-initio stages of instruction, as student pilots tend to focus too much on the instruments than looking outside visually for the correct attitude. This might explain why it's taking longer for students to solo these days compared to the pre-computer age.

An interesting personal opinion. Far from finding PC synthetic trainers a hindrance, I believe that several hours practicing flying on a synthetic trainer allows the student to be more comfortable in his knowledge and potential skills before he does his ab-initio training in the real thing. Even basic R/T can be introduced while in the synthetic trainer or PC trainer since R/T is such an important integral part of early training. The PC trainer is ideal for training procedures the student will use in the air.

The "feel" of a synthetic trainer will be different of course to the real thing but that is easily overcome when the students starts flying. It is up to the instructor to then refine the procedures the student experienced in the PC trainer. While others may have differing viewpoints, having taught students in synthetic trainers before first flight I did not find they were heads down into instrument flying. On the contrary they were quick to rectify airspeed, compass and altitude deviations since they were used to scanning. In turn they devoted more time to the outside view and situational awareness since a quick glance at a performance instrument was a natural thing for them. More than anything, use of a synthetic trainer or PC trainer gave the student greater confidence which showed during ab-initio training in the real thing.

It is difficult to understand your point of longer time to first solo experienced by students who have practiced flying their PC trainers. I believe times to first solo started to increase many years back when all over grass airfields gave way to runway operations. In those days the aero club training area was typically only a few minutes away from the aerodrome which meant short transit times. My log book for example shows the majority of dual ab-initio instruction flights before first solo of 40 minutes and certainly less than one hour. Nowadays we see long delays before getting airborne at capital city secondary airports such as Essendon and Moorabbin and training areas sometimes more than 25 minutes transit time in each direction. The training environment has changed significantly. Of course frequency of flights, and student and instructor ability all come into consideration when looking at why dual hours before first solo have increased from 8-10 hours to typically 15 to 20 hours and even more. There is no shortage of anecdotal evidence that "hours building" by some flying instructors also means an inordinate amount of dual goes into the students log books in relation to solo time. In other words supervision of instructors by their CFI's is lax.

All of the above considerations must be taken into account when looking into the disparity in time to first solo in the old days when compared to present day flying training. I believe it has nothing to do with the fact that students today have access to PC flight trainers.

Re competency based training as another perceived reason for longer times to first solo. More dual hours does not necessarily produce a better student pilot. The skill of the instructor is an important factor. The mere fact the amount of paperwork an instructor is required to fill in after each flight in order to tick every box on the progress report, has increased four-fold from the old days, has nothing to do with time to first solo and certainly does not increase student handling skills.

[Tankengine]

Garry,
I think you are correct.
If it is taking 15-20 hours to send students solo by competency in C150-172 then you really do need to look at the competency of the Instructors!

[Horatio Leafblower]

Fright Sim

Centaurus,

You are correct that a Synthetic Trainer or even a PC can be a useful training aid but there IS a very real negative transfer between unsupervised recreational use of PC flight sims and the real aircraft.

My theory is that due to the limited field of vision in a PC sim the stude is reliant on gauges for all their information. It's great that they can read gauges, yes, but if you are unaware of their preferences they will go to gauges in preference to attitude all the time.

I find it is avoided quickly & simply by asking if they have played Flight Sims a lot and if so, highlight the potential pitfalls at the start. Watch their eyes when flying, etc.

The other potential complication in this discussion: maybe nerd-boy Flight Sim addict has very little spatial awareness or hand-eye coordination in the real 3D world beyond his bedroom?

The guys who work outside or ride motorbikes or play footy all make better flying students - maybe not so hot on the theory or getting Met on a computer though.

Finally: I can't remember who wrote it but someone mentioned letting the stude in a TIF have a go at steering etc to assess their ability, then giving them as much of the takeoff as they can safely handle. Agree 100%... but they have to be happy that you have total control from the RHS if required, understand handover/takeover, and so on.

[training wheels]

Originally Posted by Cynical Pilot

Centaurus I think you've missed the point trainingwheels was making. He's not talking about proper synthetic trainers, he's talking about Microsoft Flight Sim or whatever the cool cats have at home these days.

Yes, that's what I was referring to. The type of students who were self taught at home unsupervised by an instructor, flying MS flight sim in their leisure. If you've instructed such students, it's quite evident where they're coming from as they all have a 'natural' tendency to look at the instruments first when flying. All you need to do is look at their eyes when going from climb to cruise, they'll be focusing on the AH to set the cruise attitude rather than looking out the window.

Another common occurrence with such students is flying the aircraft by trim rather than setting the right attitude, and then trimming .. .

When students repeatedly do such errors, it has become a habit that makes it even more difficult to break or 'un-teach'. Any good instructor will not allow for this to continue uncorrected which explains the longer times before solo these days, compared to pre-computer age days.

But I do agree that synthetic trainers are good for a number of things even during the early stages of ab-initio training, as a procedural trainer.

[Centaurus]

they'll be focusing on the AH to set the cruise attitude rather than looking out the window.

That is exactly how aircraft should be flown. It applies to all aircraft from Cessna to 747. In fact part of the lesson for an ab-initio student for the sequence straight and level flight includes scanning of the artificial horizon. Read the CASA Flight instructors manual DA 2342 (Rev 5/88) at page 17, Exercise No. 5 where the published aim is to teach how to fly the aeroplane accurately straight and level.

Quote: "During the flight stress the attitude of the aeroplane with reference to the natural horizon...instruct the student to keep a good lookout and point out prominent landmarks as an introduction to the process of orientation.
As the student becomes more proficient draw his attention to the flight instruments. show how their indications are directly related to the attitude of the aeroplane in relation to the horizon. Do all this in all exercises from now on - remembering the need for a good lookout. Do not let him get a `head in the cabin` complex. ...when the aeroplane is settled in straight and level flight point out the instrument indications and relate them directly to the attitude of the aeroplane

..Straight and Level Flight at Various Power Settings; Instruments Point out that the indications of the instruments are now different from the normal cruising straight and level indications...Relate these readings directly to the aeroplane' different attitude, especially the lower nose position"

Climbing...during the climb point out the indications of the various flight instruments...Relate these indications directly to the attitude of the aeroplane in relation to the natural horizon"

And the CASA Flight Instructors Manual even gives advice to instructors on how to conduct a TIF or Air Experience. To those instructors keen to chance their arm and throw a TIF student into the deep end by giving them a take off the manual has this to say at page 1.

Quote "If possible the flight should be made in good weather, as many potential pilots have been frightened away by rough and unpleasant weather. very little instructions should be given at this stage though if he appears to be comfortable the student should be allowed to `follow the instructor through` on the controls and even manipulate them for a short while" Unquote

I can't remember who wrote it but someone mentioned letting the stude in a TIF have a go at steering etc to assess their ability, then giving them as much of the takeoff as they can safely handle. Agree 100%

Interesting the Flight Instructor's Manual doesn't mention this technique. Rather it recommends for a TIF "Very little instructions should be given at this stage..though if he appears to be comfortable the student should be allowed to `follow the instructor through` and even manipulate them for a short while Clearly the intent is to do this at cruise altitude - not a take off and climb.

[dubbleyew eight]

you want to watch your quotes there centaurus.
when I read that I thought you were advocating flying in day vfr by instruments.

btw the Tee shirt that I'm wearing says "fly the attitude"
(its from adelaide biplanes at aldinga)

[Centaurus]

A bit of turbulence is often good for getting them to actually move the controls without them being afraid they'll break something

Really? What a "bit of turbulence" is to the instructor can mean something else entirely to a first time TIF student.. To quote from the CASA Flight instructors Manual again: "If possible the flight should be made in good weather, as many potential pilots have been frightened away by a rough and unpleasant first flight."

Too many inexperienced instructors are keen to beat the others to pick up a TIF and if that means the weather is not suitable, then their attitude is what the hell I need to eat and a TIF student is the start regardless of the suitability of the weather. Essendon pilots may remember the grade 3 that taxied in a 30 knot wind with a TIF student while those watching from the safety of Essendon terminal building watched with great interest.

Checking the controls of the 152 at the threshold of 35 with wind gusting beyond 30 knots, when full back elevator was made the Cessna got airborne into a half loop and finished inverted on the runway. The TIF student certainly got his money's worth but whether he came back for another TIF is lost in history. The instructor told investigators he gave the choice that day to the TIF student who didn't have a clue of course about weather but who said "Let's go". So they did - with a spectacular result

[training wheels]

Originally Posted by Centaurus

Quote: "During the flight stress the attitude of the aeroplane with reference to the natural horizon...instruct the student to keep a good lookout and point out prominent landmarks as an introduction to the process of orientation.

Doesn't that mean looking out the window and not at the instruments? I have had many students in the past who start off instrument flying from lesson 1. LOL!

[Tankengine]

Better to do their first flights in a glider, that way they don't get confused with artificial horizons OR engines.
They learn what their feet are for too!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Really? What a "bit of turbulence" is to the instructor can mean something else entirely to a first time TIF student.. To quote from the CASA Flight instructors Manual again: "If possible the flight should be made in good weather, as many potential pilots have been frightened away by a rough and unpleasant first flight."

Use a little bit of common sense here.

My comment was directed at the fact many EOC flights need to be encouraged to move the controls further. I was definitely not advocating that you conduct the TIF when there's a sigmet current.

Centaurus, if my willingness to give a potential student as high a quality experience as possible results in that student not coming back, then it can be said I am doing the wrong thing, but I'm sure that after over ten years and a couple of thousand hours of instructing, I think I (and more importantly my company) would notice if none of my TIFs were coming back.

That ain't the case...

Many instructors have many different ways of doing things. Techniques I use may work better for some students than others. Other instructors may have a different tact to achieve the same aim, but remember, this industry is definitely not one size fits all. I'm not trying to say all instructors must let their TIFs do the take off. I don't let all mine do it either, but the original comment was that it is neither illegal nor stupid if you choose to do so and I stand by that.

Clearly the intent is to do this at cruise altitude - not a take off and climb.

If that is the intent, then it would say though if the student appears to be comfortable the student should be allowed to ‘follow the instructor through’ on the controls and even manipulate them for a short while in the cruise.

That, again, ain't the case...

[Judd]

but I'm sure that after over ten years and a couple of thousand hours of instructing,

and

"I've done hundreds of TIF's in my time".

OK, so we are all impressed. But best leave the flaunting of your qualifications to your CV, chaps

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

I respect Centaurus and think he makes many valuable contributions to this site. In this case, I just happen to disagree with his opinion and am backing up my argument with experience.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I'm with you MIHC.

I also greatly respect the contributions of Centaur-a-saurus and A37565 amongst a few others.

... like MIHC I disagree with them on this one.