Why has flight training gone assbackwards?
Given the nature of the training industry in aviation one can not rise to that level within the structure that we have in the flight training industry, and even if one could somehow teach in a manner that does not fit the structure of the flight school you would have to be like mother Theresa and devote your life to poverty.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All these cliches about aviate ,navigate, communicate, or superior pilots----superior skills, old bold pilots etc are no use to man or beast, they just make instructors feel superior. What is needed is genuine devotion to the job/vocation of teaching , not a mindless attitude of "when is my job application for the airline going to be accepted."
Early in training I once asked an instructor for 15mins to myself to crawl about the floor to actually see the brake pedals, figure out how they worked relative to the rudder, where the fuel tap was & how it worked etc. I got about 30seconds before he was champing at the bit with "come on let's go". So off we went again fumbling around blindly trying to feel for things. I did a total of 29 hours of navigation exercises over country that I had flown gliders over for years, walked dogs over for even more years, camped in numerous times. I never yet got lost, I was never purposely gotten lost by any instructor in order to find myself.
I once applied some power to climb a few feet to clear a ridge by a better margin (glider pilot thinking) & put us barely into a wisp of mist, I could see through it, I could see the far side valley. The instructor literally ripped the yoke out of my hand, slammed it forward & returned to what I considered too close to the granite. I then watched him write on his notepad "Climbed straight into cloud!!!" With a triumphant flourish. He knew I had flown gliders. Yet I was made to feel like some stupid dumbassed numpty. At that point I decided to give in, go through the mill, get spat out the other side with a licence and then buy an aircraft with a tailwheel and get someone I had respect for to teach me to fly it. Or at least the tailwheel bit.
It was beaten out of me to use the rudder, "stop pissing about with it". Touch & go's "get the bloody nose wheel down before you power up", I was once griped at severely for not actually touching down, in spite of being constantly told to "get it down" up to the far end numbers, probably cost them £2 for a touch & go!
Most instructors do know what they are doing, but at the age of 66 when I finally started to fly power with the intention of finishing the course, I wish they would recognise that we may be rookie pilots but we are not rookie people, when they head out to sea at 3000ft "pull the power off & lose some height" and the glider pilot expresses the feeling of nervousness, pay attention, he isn't scared he just wouldn't do that in a glider!
What does piss them off is a PFL close to an into wind hill and the thing starts to climb, provided they will let you get close enough to it without screaming.
Excuse my ramblings, just my own experiences.
Early in training I once asked an instructor for 15mins to myself to crawl about the floor to actually see the brake pedals, figure out how they worked relative to the rudder, where the fuel tap was & how it worked etc. I got about 30seconds before he was champing at the bit with "come on let's go". So off we went again fumbling around blindly trying to feel for things. I did a total of 29 hours of navigation exercises over country that I had flown gliders over for years, walked dogs over for even more years, camped in numerous times. I never yet got lost, I was never purposely gotten lost by any instructor in order to find myself.
I once applied some power to climb a few feet to clear a ridge by a better margin (glider pilot thinking) & put us barely into a wisp of mist, I could see through it, I could see the far side valley. The instructor literally ripped the yoke out of my hand, slammed it forward & returned to what I considered too close to the granite. I then watched him write on his notepad "Climbed straight into cloud!!!" With a triumphant flourish. He knew I had flown gliders. Yet I was made to feel like some stupid dumbassed numpty. At that point I decided to give in, go through the mill, get spat out the other side with a licence and then buy an aircraft with a tailwheel and get someone I had respect for to teach me to fly it. Or at least the tailwheel bit.
It was beaten out of me to use the rudder, "stop pissing about with it". Touch & go's "get the bloody nose wheel down before you power up", I was once griped at severely for not actually touching down, in spite of being constantly told to "get it down" up to the far end numbers, probably cost them £2 for a touch & go!
Most instructors do know what they are doing, but at the age of 66 when I finally started to fly power with the intention of finishing the course, I wish they would recognise that we may be rookie pilots but we are not rookie people, when they head out to sea at 3000ft "pull the power off & lose some height" and the glider pilot expresses the feeling of nervousness, pay attention, he isn't scared he just wouldn't do that in a glider!
What does piss them off is a PFL close to an into wind hill and the thing starts to climb, provided they will let you get close enough to it without screaming.
Excuse my ramblings, just my own experiences.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse my ramblings, just my own experiences.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Early in training I once asked an instructor for 15mins to myself to crawl about the floor to actually see the brake pedals, figure out how they worked relative to the rudder, where the fuel tap was & how it worked etc. I got about 30seconds before he was champing at the bit with "come on let's go".
We talk round and round it, but the fact is, in the UK, It's so damned expensive, the stude wants his/her license in the quickest possible time.
When I learned to drive, the instructor advised, "I will teach you how to drive,.....If you just want to pass the test, go to BSM"
(the major national "sausage-machine" driving school chain, at that time)
As a keen motor-enthusiast, I had experience on solo, sidecar and three-wheeler, at that time. Awareness and anticipation have made up for my poor reaction-times...I haven't been killed yet!
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pace
Incipient recovery has had a number of threads started where the pilots are not confident in stalling on their own for fear of getting it wrong and ending up in unknown territory (i.e. spins)
This thread kinda pisses me off a bit. Its a "the old way is better" and you here it in every aspect of life. I hear in my job, I hear in in my other sports, here it everywhere. The simple fact it we are far more educated these days, and I see this as a positive. It reflects in statistics.
You may think you are a great pilot just because you learned seat of the pants flying in a tail dragger, but that does not mean anything. To me a great pilot is one that keeps me alive, and that is all that matters.
So you got thrown in the deep end when you learned. That is stupid. As you said recently in an article Chuck, how many people died learning crop dusting? Once again, absolutely mind numbingly stupid. What a senseless waste of life? Now, you learn to fly a plane safely first, then you go off and learn the finer aspects of flying. Its a gradual safe introduction that minimises risk to both student and instructor. That is a sensible way to teach. Sure, a 172 is pretty tame, but if you want to go learn tail draggers or aerobatics, then you can. It makes no sense to start off learning the most complex stuff. Learn to fly first, then progress. Much safer that way.
I hear the argument about technology all the time, its what I do for a living. The old GPS argument is great. I learned to read chart and use a nautical almanac and sextant for offshore sailing, so it must be better. I used to go hiking and I used a map and compass so it must be better. Fact is, I can safely say that I learned the old way and in my opinion the new way is way is so much better (and safer). I remember when GPS was first introduced, it was pretty hit and miss. Now, technology is so much more robust and reliable, so why not adopt it and make the most of it. I can put my hand up here and say I still have trust issues with GPS, but my rational thought process enables me to overcome this. The real issue here is people get set in their ways, they are afraid to move out of their comfort zone and learn. This is the real problem. This is what makes bad sailors, and I would suggest it also makes bad pilots.
Ongoing learning is the key. Teaching people to think critically is vital. If we maintained the mentality that we should do everything the old way, then we would still be flying with wright brothers (in fact, we would not be flying at all).
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Chuck, I didn't want to sound like some know all trying to tell instructors what I knew about flying which was bugger all!
However here's a couple more: The syllabus, maybe it was an oversight but I was sent solo, after 14 hrs, after a few hours, 4 I think, of solo consolidation I, perfectly innocently asked if I could perhaps stall the thing, just to see the characteristics of the 152. This caused some kerfuffle in the instructors little room while I was asked to wait!! Exercise 10 A & B followed.
I don't recall much instruction regarding weight & balance, something on the lines of "we've flown together before so let's go". Having to figure it out for the GFT wasn't easy!!
My QXC solo was done in, I suppose, scud running conditions. A rain squall at 2 miles beyond take off, I advised departure that they should expect to get rained on in 5 mins so get the G&T indoors. 20mins later I had a race to the first turn point with a big black cloud, managed that, turned 160 deg and ran ahead of it to first landing, waited a while till it passed then followed it to second landing, then ran for home before the next one came too close. I enjoyed it but only because I'd done similar in snow with gliders.
I only did one diversion, once again over familiar home ground, 10 miles to home base! I did no short field take offs or landings, nor any ops from grass till after I bought my own aircraft & based it on 600metres grass farm strip.
I also never did anything in the way of practice PAN, which I think is a no no in US but is encouraged by D&D in UK for their exercise as well as students.
After the required solo time & QXC I was then abandoned & left to arrange the GFT with the examiner at another airfield by myself. Other students said the same. Maybe that is standard practice?
Is any of this standard practice or was I just unlucky? This was all 8 yrs ago so may well have changed.
My licence is just a NPPL, which doesn't allow me to add any IR etc but I know a very good ex instructor (lapsed ticket) who had me doing enough blind flying to find home base well enough if required. The aircraft isn't instrument rated but it does have a half decent panel.
However here's a couple more: The syllabus, maybe it was an oversight but I was sent solo, after 14 hrs, after a few hours, 4 I think, of solo consolidation I, perfectly innocently asked if I could perhaps stall the thing, just to see the characteristics of the 152. This caused some kerfuffle in the instructors little room while I was asked to wait!! Exercise 10 A & B followed.
I don't recall much instruction regarding weight & balance, something on the lines of "we've flown together before so let's go". Having to figure it out for the GFT wasn't easy!!
My QXC solo was done in, I suppose, scud running conditions. A rain squall at 2 miles beyond take off, I advised departure that they should expect to get rained on in 5 mins so get the G&T indoors. 20mins later I had a race to the first turn point with a big black cloud, managed that, turned 160 deg and ran ahead of it to first landing, waited a while till it passed then followed it to second landing, then ran for home before the next one came too close. I enjoyed it but only because I'd done similar in snow with gliders.
I only did one diversion, once again over familiar home ground, 10 miles to home base! I did no short field take offs or landings, nor any ops from grass till after I bought my own aircraft & based it on 600metres grass farm strip.
I also never did anything in the way of practice PAN, which I think is a no no in US but is encouraged by D&D in UK for their exercise as well as students.
After the required solo time & QXC I was then abandoned & left to arrange the GFT with the examiner at another airfield by myself. Other students said the same. Maybe that is standard practice?
Is any of this standard practice or was I just unlucky? This was all 8 yrs ago so may well have changed.
My licence is just a NPPL, which doesn't allow me to add any IR etc but I know a very good ex instructor (lapsed ticket) who had me doing enough blind flying to find home base well enough if required. The aircraft isn't instrument rated but it does have a half decent panel.
Crash One.
Flying Instruction is a 2 way street. It takes an instructor who is ready to teach and a student who is ready to learn. What I get out of your post is that neither was present.
Personally I tell all my students that all they are committing to is the first 5 hours. At that point we sit and evaluate if this is going to work. On numerous occasions over the years the answer has been no. It doesn't matter why but if it is not working for what ever reason than I have absolutely no problem with setting them up with someone else.
This procedure has served me well and I recommend it to both students and instructors. Life is too short for students to put up with bad instructors, or instructors to put up with students with a bad attitude.
Shaggy Sheep Driver
Aviate-Navigate-Communicate is a meaningless platitude unless the "How" is addressed. It is like saying "Be A Better PIlot", sounds nice but it is not very helpful advice.
Lets take for example the tragic Tomahawk EFATO accident. In this case the engine failed but the climb attitude was maintained until the airplane stalled and spun.
So how do you train for the "aviate" part for this scenario. Well what I do is require all my ab initio students do a takeoff brief before every takeoff. The first thing on the brief is "wheel forward establish gliding attitude". While they are verbalizing this I get them to physically push the control wheel forward. My hope is that this will become an automatic reaction that will save their life in the event of an EFATO.
Pace
I think you missed my point regarding the approach speed. At the moment the landing flare starts there is only one "right" speed. Any slower and there will not be enough energy for a full flare and the risk of a heavy touchdown. Any faster and there will be excessive float. You are correct than the approach can be flown at any speed but an approach flown at various speeds requires the judgement skills to manage the approach so the airplane is at the right speed at the start of the flare. This judgement requires experience. Since we are discussing ab initio instruction this experience will by definition not be there.
In any case if the student or new PPL can't fly an approach at a constant selected airspeed on a stable flight path than trying to teach them to do an approach with varying airspeeds is an exercise in futility.
The problem as I see it is that many students and new PPL's can fly a good stable approach at a constant selected airspeed, except the speed they are told to use is too fast, making it much harder to get a good landing.
Seems a bit paranoid.......
Flying Instruction is a 2 way street. It takes an instructor who is ready to teach and a student who is ready to learn. What I get out of your post is that neither was present.
Personally I tell all my students that all they are committing to is the first 5 hours. At that point we sit and evaluate if this is going to work. On numerous occasions over the years the answer has been no. It doesn't matter why but if it is not working for what ever reason than I have absolutely no problem with setting them up with someone else.
This procedure has served me well and I recommend it to both students and instructors. Life is too short for students to put up with bad instructors, or instructors to put up with students with a bad attitude.
Shaggy Sheep Driver
Aviate-Navigate-Communicate is a meaningless platitude unless the "How" is addressed. It is like saying "Be A Better PIlot", sounds nice but it is not very helpful advice.
Lets take for example the tragic Tomahawk EFATO accident. In this case the engine failed but the climb attitude was maintained until the airplane stalled and spun.
So how do you train for the "aviate" part for this scenario. Well what I do is require all my ab initio students do a takeoff brief before every takeoff. The first thing on the brief is "wheel forward establish gliding attitude". While they are verbalizing this I get them to physically push the control wheel forward. My hope is that this will become an automatic reaction that will save their life in the event of an EFATO.
Pace
I think you missed my point regarding the approach speed. At the moment the landing flare starts there is only one "right" speed. Any slower and there will not be enough energy for a full flare and the risk of a heavy touchdown. Any faster and there will be excessive float. You are correct than the approach can be flown at any speed but an approach flown at various speeds requires the judgement skills to manage the approach so the airplane is at the right speed at the start of the flare. This judgement requires experience. Since we are discussing ab initio instruction this experience will by definition not be there.
In any case if the student or new PPL can't fly an approach at a constant selected airspeed on a stable flight path than trying to teach them to do an approach with varying airspeeds is an exercise in futility.
The problem as I see it is that many students and new PPL's can fly a good stable approach at a constant selected airspeed, except the speed they are told to use is too fast, making it much harder to get a good landing.
Seems a bit paranoid.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Ellsworth
I am not in the least worried about anyone digging into my background as a pilot to find something to discredit my opinions.
Originally Posted by Chuck Ellsworth
I am not in the least worried about anyone digging into my background as a pilot to find something to discredit my opinions.
FBW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the contrary, it seems to be the very antithesis of paranoid.
FBW
FBW
However there is a long history between myself and BPF.
The big problem with attempting to defend ones self from anonymous posters is the very fact you are arguing with someone in the shadows who obviously feels the need for anonymity, for what ever reason....
Before this thread really goes south, the direction it is headed, I am finished commenting any further, thanks to all of you who kept this thread on a civil level.
Chuck Ellsworth
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BPF
I'm sorry but I disagree with not willing to learn, I most definitely was willing to learn, but some, not all, of the instructors I had were not very sympathetic to anyone who may have had some form of flight experience prior to the event. They came across as, "you are a student, you therefore know nothing and I will teach you". This is not always the case and generalising like that pisses people off. I am not a know all asshole unwilling to listen but I'm afraid I can recognise waffle & bull**** when I hear it. I've been flying very irregularly since 1956, I'm not stupid, I take a great interest in trying to improve my capabilities. I have tried very hard not to be a smart ass in everything I do, and just for the record, I pretty much expected your response by the way you seem to defend the instructor in many of your posts. I hate being misunderstood.
Edit: as for real names versus anonymity.
Trevor Harvey
Ex Royal Navy crash & rescue, glider pilot, 7 years with a power licence, 6 years owning a very benign taildragger, retired machine tool designer and looking to learn all I can with whatever time I have left at 74 yr old.
Not much by some standards but what the hell!!
I'm sorry but I disagree with not willing to learn, I most definitely was willing to learn, but some, not all, of the instructors I had were not very sympathetic to anyone who may have had some form of flight experience prior to the event. They came across as, "you are a student, you therefore know nothing and I will teach you". This is not always the case and generalising like that pisses people off. I am not a know all asshole unwilling to listen but I'm afraid I can recognise waffle & bull**** when I hear it. I've been flying very irregularly since 1956, I'm not stupid, I take a great interest in trying to improve my capabilities. I have tried very hard not to be a smart ass in everything I do, and just for the record, I pretty much expected your response by the way you seem to defend the instructor in many of your posts. I hate being misunderstood.
Edit: as for real names versus anonymity.
Trevor Harvey
Ex Royal Navy crash & rescue, glider pilot, 7 years with a power licence, 6 years owning a very benign taildragger, retired machine tool designer and looking to learn all I can with whatever time I have left at 74 yr old.
Not much by some standards but what the hell!!
Last edited by Crash one; 14th Mar 2014 at 01:31.
Crash 1
I of course do not know you or observed the instruction you received. All I have to go by is your posts which described an extremely dysfunctional instructional process. My experience has been when things are that bad the problem is not totally one sided. By that I mean both parties are contributing to the problem.
Students have to take ownership of their training. That means researching schools, making an effort to establish a good rapport with their instructor and if for what ever reason they feel that things are not going right to communicate their issues to their instructor and if necessary the chief flight instructor. A change of instructors or an insistence that all instruction will be with the one instructor that works for you may be required.
Are there bad instructors out there ? Absolutely ! Could Flying training be better, of course but presuming incompetence, and venality as the norm for todays instructor cadre, which seems the subtext to many posts does not seem to be a very useful way to improve the situation. If that makes me an apologist for instructors, then I guess you are correct.
I of course do not know you or observed the instruction you received. All I have to go by is your posts which described an extremely dysfunctional instructional process. My experience has been when things are that bad the problem is not totally one sided. By that I mean both parties are contributing to the problem.
Students have to take ownership of their training. That means researching schools, making an effort to establish a good rapport with their instructor and if for what ever reason they feel that things are not going right to communicate their issues to their instructor and if necessary the chief flight instructor. A change of instructors or an insistence that all instruction will be with the one instructor that works for you may be required.
Are there bad instructors out there ? Absolutely ! Could Flying training be better, of course but presuming incompetence, and venality as the norm for todays instructor cadre, which seems the subtext to many posts does not seem to be a very useful way to improve the situation. If that makes me an apologist for instructors, then I guess you are correct.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviate-Navigate-Communicate is a meaningless platitude unless the "How" is addressed. It is like saying "Be A Better PIlot", sounds nice but it is not very helpful advice.
Lets take for example the tragic Tomahawk EFATO accident. In this case the engine failed but the climb attitude was maintained until the airplane stalled and spun.
So how do you train for the "aviate" part for this scenario. Well what I do is require all my ab initio students do a takeoff brief before every takeoff. The first thing on the brief is "wheel forward establish gliding attitude". While they are verbalizing this I get them to physically push the control wheel forward. My hope is that this will become an automatic reaction that will save their life in the event of an EFATO.
Lets take for example the tragic Tomahawk EFATO accident. In this case the engine failed but the climb attitude was maintained until the airplane stalled and spun.
So how do you train for the "aviate" part for this scenario. Well what I do is require all my ab initio students do a takeoff brief before every takeoff. The first thing on the brief is "wheel forward establish gliding attitude". While they are verbalizing this I get them to physically push the control wheel forward. My hope is that this will become an automatic reaction that will save their life in the event of an EFATO.
Yet both those pilots got out a radio call, the one who died did so as the aeroplane was slowing and its AoA increasing (it isn't clear whether this was the case in Cranfield accident). That shows that not only did those pilots not do the intuitive thing and take care of AoA, they diverted attention to getting on the horn to talk to someone! Why? First... FLY THE AEROPLANE!
When it happened to me (ironically off that same runway the pilot died from) in the Chippy the first thing I did was to get the bleeding nose down - quite sharply. And I didn't have to think about it... many, many PFLs had made it instinctive! Only when the aeroplane was stable in (slow, slightly descending) flight did I get on the horn to warn everyone else to get out of the way as I was landing IMMEDIATLY off a very short final from a very low circuit (I coundn't hear the radio even though using a headset because of the cachophony from the mis-firing engine, so just put out repeated transmissions).
Aviate (get the AoA under control), navigate (pick your field), if there's time, communicate (warn other traffic what you are doing).
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash 1,
I would love to know where you learnt so people can know to avoid it!
I can understand the instructor not giving time before a flight to crawl around the aircraft if they had a full book - they either cut your lesson short, so instead of getting an hour (50 mins airborne), you only get 45 (35) minutes which which does make the flying time less effective, or they are running into the next students time - what I WOULD have done though is suggested a time when you COULD come in and do this. Without a full book, there is NO excuse!
I am amazed you had not covered stalling properly prior to Solo - solo is exercise 14, and when I was taught maths 10 comes a few numbers before this!
The other examples you give also sound a little a though you were dealing with an instructor who was not very good and probably low experience to book!
I would love to know where you learnt so people can know to avoid it!
I can understand the instructor not giving time before a flight to crawl around the aircraft if they had a full book - they either cut your lesson short, so instead of getting an hour (50 mins airborne), you only get 45 (35) minutes which which does make the flying time less effective, or they are running into the next students time - what I WOULD have done though is suggested a time when you COULD come in and do this. Without a full book, there is NO excuse!
I am amazed you had not covered stalling properly prior to Solo - solo is exercise 14, and when I was taught maths 10 comes a few numbers before this!
The other examples you give also sound a little a though you were dealing with an instructor who was not very good and probably low experience to book!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD
But this is the point some instructor somewhere signed that guy off who failed to push the nose over and there are two many PPLs like that.
I am treating myself to a few hours in a Cirrus this year as I think its a great plane but reading the Cirrus chute pull accidents I was frankly horrified.
Chute pull for blocked pitot ???
Chute pull for stall off VS on autopilot
Chute pull for radio failure
Chute pull for failure to fly ILS and loss of control on miss
Chute pull for failed nav display
So many other loss of control pulls which should never have happened to a well taught competent pilot.
This is not a dig at instructors but a dig at the training syllabus which needs to put far more into handling and not playing with fancy displays.
There should be an advanced handling segment of the PPL taking 5 hrs chop 5 hrs out of the PPL to make way for it. not hard to find 5 hrs of less priority stuff in there.
If that is too hard have a five hours advanced handling rating to tack on the PPL
Pace
But this is the point some instructor somewhere signed that guy off who failed to push the nose over and there are two many PPLs like that.
I am treating myself to a few hours in a Cirrus this year as I think its a great plane but reading the Cirrus chute pull accidents I was frankly horrified.
Chute pull for blocked pitot ???
Chute pull for stall off VS on autopilot
Chute pull for radio failure
Chute pull for failure to fly ILS and loss of control on miss
Chute pull for failed nav display
So many other loss of control pulls which should never have happened to a well taught competent pilot.
This is not a dig at instructors but a dig at the training syllabus which needs to put far more into handling and not playing with fancy displays.
There should be an advanced handling segment of the PPL taking 5 hrs chop 5 hrs out of the PPL to make way for it. not hard to find 5 hrs of less priority stuff in there.
If that is too hard have a five hours advanced handling rating to tack on the PPL
Pace
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not a dig at instructors but a dig at the training syllabus which needs to put far more into handling and not playing with fancy displays
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOXMOTH 
There is some truth in that! As another thought I wonder how much we become victims of technology, autopilots and such which we come to rely on forgetting our basic flying skills.
How often do pilot get lost in the displays and systems relying on pressing the autopilot button on and sitting there as PAX for the flight.
How often do SEP pilots practice PFLs or stalls or even steep turns.
Its the same with twin pilots! How often do they practice engine out scenarios? often not at all!
Maybe years back the pilot did not have all this technology and had to be more of a hands on thinking and creative pilot?
I can remember when I thought Decca was amazing as well as being able to artificially place a VOR on track
Now we have pictorial terrain displays all on a screen knowing where we are to within a metre. We even have a button to press to level the wings for us! but flying some of these machines is unreal a bit like flying a home simulator rather than an aircraft? Hence basic handling gets lost somewhere in the mix? Until its suddenly needed but lacking.
Hence Chucks comments of flying should be an Art but has in many cases become a book of painting by numbers was very thought provoking.
Equally BPFs comments on broken nose wheels due to excess speed on approach would reinforce that flying by numbers has crept into the training world as well. Sorry BPF
maybe show your students how to fly a faster approach and still be on the numbers for landing? Show them how to use power and drag in all its guises not just gear and flaps
Pace
There is some truth in that! As another thought I wonder how much we become victims of technology, autopilots and such which we come to rely on forgetting our basic flying skills.
How often do pilot get lost in the displays and systems relying on pressing the autopilot button on and sitting there as PAX for the flight.
How often do SEP pilots practice PFLs or stalls or even steep turns.
Its the same with twin pilots! How often do they practice engine out scenarios? often not at all!
Maybe years back the pilot did not have all this technology and had to be more of a hands on thinking and creative pilot?
I can remember when I thought Decca was amazing as well as being able to artificially place a VOR on track
Now we have pictorial terrain displays all on a screen knowing where we are to within a metre. We even have a button to press to level the wings for us! but flying some of these machines is unreal a bit like flying a home simulator rather than an aircraft? Hence basic handling gets lost somewhere in the mix? Until its suddenly needed but lacking.
Hence Chucks comments of flying should be an Art but has in many cases become a book of painting by numbers was very thought provoking.
Equally BPFs comments on broken nose wheels due to excess speed on approach would reinforce that flying by numbers has crept into the training world as well. Sorry BPF
maybe show your students how to fly a faster approach and still be on the numbers for landing? Show them how to use power and drag in all its guises not just gear and flaps Pace
Last edited by Pace; 14th Mar 2014 at 11:42.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before this thread really goes south, the direction it is headed, I am finished commenting any further, thanks to all of you who kept this thread on a civil level.Chuck Ellsworth
but it might be a few years down the line that they buy a Cirrus and many pilots do not keep up to speed with the basics, so it may be nothing to do with the basic teaching!
Hence Chucks comments of flying should be an Art but has in many cases become a book of painting by numbers was very thought provoking.
As technology enhances, then this scenario is replaced by, rightly, advances in aviation technology. With that, the training syllabus, must also change. But it is transition period, and the training organisations must also change, not only in the kit that is used, but in the instructors visions. One thing is clear though, flight is about basics, and if these are not taught, and taught well, then I doubt the accident rates will ever fall.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a 250 hour sprog I can't lend any weight of experience as I haven't got much but one thing I've noted is that that some pilots who have many more hours than me, and who you think 'I'm going to learn something here' are appalling flyers. I've been glad to get out of an aircraft piloted by one multi thousand hour pilot, basic airmanship and flying skills totally gone to pot.
The other thing I might add after reading Shaggy's post is that I wonder how many glider pilots who fly powered have a problem with getting the nose immediately down after an EFATO. As a silent flyer you expect the cable to break on take off, because it often does. I would say the reaction time between cable break and stuffing the stick forward would be around half a second, I see no reason why it shouldn't be the same after an EFATO. People are lulled into thinking that 'Well, aero engines hardly ever fail', which is why we still see people getting hurt or killed in EFATO scenarios. Personally I expect the fan to stop during every take off, which is why I won't take off on some runways because the chances of making a safe landing are pretty non existent. Probably just a throwback to when I expected the cable to break.
The other thing I might add after reading Shaggy's post is that I wonder how many glider pilots who fly powered have a problem with getting the nose immediately down after an EFATO. As a silent flyer you expect the cable to break on take off, because it often does. I would say the reaction time between cable break and stuffing the stick forward would be around half a second, I see no reason why it shouldn't be the same after an EFATO. People are lulled into thinking that 'Well, aero engines hardly ever fail', which is why we still see people getting hurt or killed in EFATO scenarios. Personally I expect the fan to stop during every take off, which is why I won't take off on some runways because the chances of making a safe landing are pretty non existent. Probably just a throwback to when I expected the cable to break.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing
Gliding is an excellent introduction to powered flying as in still air you have only one energy source to tap into so are not clouded by a second energy source in the form of an engine.
Having mastered the airframe energy source through the column (another throttle )you are then well equipped to add the engine energy source.
I totally agree with you
Pace
Gliding is an excellent introduction to powered flying as in still air you have only one energy source to tap into so are not clouded by a second energy source in the form of an engine.
Having mastered the airframe energy source through the column (another throttle )you are then well equipped to add the engine energy source.
I totally agree with you
Pace
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I did fly gliders (from a winch site) before getting a PPL in the late'70s. Maybe cable break practice contributes, but really I think if you have lots of practice EFATOs in a powered aircraft that should make it instinctive. And instinctive it has to be - there isn't time to sit and work it out when it happens.
Perhaps flying an aeroplane with an ancient design of engine helps as well (Gipsy Major) as these are more prone to occasional rough running and misfire than later designs such as Lycomings. When this happens, one automatically eases the nose down a tad in the climb to compensate for any power loss.
Perhaps flying an aeroplane with an ancient design of engine helps as well (Gipsy Major) as these are more prone to occasional rough running and misfire than later designs such as Lycomings. When this happens, one automatically eases the nose down a tad in the climb to compensate for any power loss.