Armchairflyer
I was born in the 50s and took up flying in the early 80s. Where can you draw the conclusion that higher accidents statistics were due to inferior instructing in the 50s compared to now? Back in the 50s the navigation equipment was non existent compared to nowadays. Pilots did not have the abundance of situational displays and all the other gubbins available today including all the internet weather etc available nowadays, flight planning programmes and all the other pilot aids available on the net ! Now we even have chuted aircraft where the pilot is told to pull the chute for anything and everything which might challenge him including totally stupid stuff like frozen pitot tube, radio failure, simple stall off incorrect use of the autopilot, failure to fly a basic missed approach. I suppose those chute pulls were all down to the superior instructing nowadays? Give me a break when we have threads started here by pilots scared to stall on their own because they are worried it might go wrong and then they will be in zones they have never experienced with modern instructing? What a load of bull! Those statistics have NOTHING to do with superior instructing nowadays. I have lost seven friends since I started flying! When I think back to some of the **** stuff I have flown in, The homemade approached to ridiculously low levels, the Icing, failures, thunderstorm encounters etc etc etc. I wonder how I am still here! Does that make me a brilliant pilot NO a lucky one maybe! But one thing I am sure of some of the old instructors taught me things which have served me well and got me out of numerous scrapes. Pace |
Pace,
where did I draw the conclusion that higher accidents statistics were due to inferior instructing in the 50s compared to now? I just researched a source that BPF (possibly) referred to to make a point that instructing in the 50s may not have been that superior compared to now. Don't shoot the messenger ;) |
Oh dear God I just can't resist staying in this discussion.
Soooo.... Armchairflyer in the fifties our training to get the CPL included the requirement to demonstrate recoveries from unusual attitudes on limited panel instruments....Airspeed....Altimiter and Turn and Bank only. The recovery was performed using three stage amber as our vision limiting device....the " Hood " that pilots wear today was not in use...... A " hood " is a very poor vision limiting device compared to two stage amber to practice flying by reference to instruments only.. ......so if we could demonstrate that level of proficiency in the fifties how do you think today's CPL students would do using three stage amber on a limited panel for unusual attitude recovery? Even more important, how many of today's flight instructors teaching new CPL students would be able to teach that exercise using the same equipment?.....the answer to that question may help us to decide if the old school school instructors were inferior to today's instructors. |
I learned to fly in the early 1970's. At that time there were still lots of flight schools with tail draggers and more importantly there were still many active X military instructors most of whom had been Military QFI's. They were the product of a huge Air Force training system and a system that had most pilots only served a short service commission and then went to civvy street.
These guys trained most of the instructors and even though most working instructors started as low time CPL's with instructor ratings they were mentored by men of great experience and ability. There were still lots of tail draggers in commercial use in the bush and in ag flying, so tail wheel time was an advantage to CPL's looking for work Today that cohort of tax payer paid for exceptional air force training is almost totally absent as air forces have greatly reduced their throughput and pilots stay in for much longer, so getting good instructor rating instruction and getting on the job mentoring from a professional is much more difficult. Tailwheels are almost extinct in commercial aviation jobs and hefty insurance surcharges for tail wheel aircraft make it difficult to use them at flying schools and they are perceived to have little advantage for budding CPL's. Advocating a return to the "good old days" of trail draggers and experienced instructors is IMO a totally impractical fantasy. In any case I don't think it is necessary as I see plenty of keen young instructors with a great attitude and pretty good hands and feet. So it would seem to me if one was truly interested in improving flight training today there we should be advocating for things that are actually implementable. I would also suggest that if you want young instructors to actually listen to you continually crapping on them with blanket statements that imply they are universally incompetent is not an effective strategy. So to start the discussion here is 4 ideas to make instructing better 1) The POH gives a range of airspeeds to fly on final. Use the lowest speed given for every configuration. There seem to me far to many flight schools that mandate excessively high approach speeds which IMO is largely responsible for the busted nosewheel accidents. 2) Place more emphasis on learning aircraft systems and how an airplane works. Low/no knowledge results in airplanes operated by mindlessly following the checklist without understanding what is happening. Runup checks are a particularly egregious example of this. 3) Checklist are a safety of flight tool and not an instructional tool. Most flight schools are needlessly long and complicated. If misusing a particular control, guage,device will not result in an immediate reduction in flight safety than it should not be on the checklist. Also they are called "checklists" not "do-lists" for a reason. Most checks should be done as a flow and then when appropriate "checked" with the checklist. 4) GPS is a huge safety enabler. Flight schools need to stop pretending it doesn't exist and instead educate pilots on how to use it appropriately. |
Chuck/BPF how about the two of you go to a Flight school far far away, and ask for ab-initio instruction. Tell them you have never flown before, and see what you get. Just an idea.
|
My current PPL student goes for his flight test next Wednesday. I frankly don't care what instruction was like in the past, I prefer to make a difference one student at a time right now.
I have said my piece and don't think I have much more to offer to this thread. |
Crash one, I started this thread wondering why a flight school would sell its Super Cub, they already own it and it is insured and part of their training fleet.
Like all discussions this one has gone around and around with lots of different ideas. I have let my medical expire for the last year because it was the only way I could get out of having to fly for someone else, I am toying with the idea of renewing my medical. If I do renew my medical and decide to do some part time training doing it in a flight school would not be where I would choose to do it for several reasons. The biggest reason is I have not done any training in the flight school sector of aviation since 1965 and I have no desire to renew my flight instructors rating for many reasons.....and one of the biggest reasons is I can not see any reason to work for the low pay to be made in a flight school. However I could go back to offering flight training focused on skills upgrading to licensed pilots and for sure that can pay very well, when I was last in the advanced flight training business my hourly rate was about five to ten times the hourly rate a flight school pays. So no thanks I'll pass on going to a flight school just to see how they operate. :ok: |
There seem to me far to many flight schools that mandate excessively high approach speeds which IMO is largely responsible for the busted nosewheel accidents. |
BPF:
1, 2, 3 and 4 in post 124, above...:ok: |
1) The POH gives a range of airspeeds to fly on final. Use the lowest speed given for every configuration. There seem to me far to many flight schools that mandate excessively high approach speeds which IMO is largely responsible for the busted nosewheel accidents. This is again an example of the move away from a handling pilot to a driver and has those pilots too scared and with little ability to use techniques to slow down to a correct VREF speed for landing. When a pilot moves into busier airports he may be required to fly high speed on the approach or reduce to minimum speed. We are not talking about experienced pilots but any who fly into larger airports. That inability to control speeds will probably reflect in landings too where again the pilot needs confidence in handling the aircraft in crosswinds and near the ground as it all frankly comes back to a lack of handling skills. Many appear to cross their fingers and become passengers to the landing hoping it all turns out ok? rather than flying the aircraft to touchdown and in control to full stop. Its the lack of handling and landing ability not higher speeds on approach which causes broken nose wheels. I have flown with some who are not even new pilots who tense on the landing and almost seem surprised and relieved when it touches down ok. Another I right seated in a twin got into the famous Seneca porpoise and sat there rigid at the controls as the bucking got worse praying for the bucks to stop yet not realising that only his inputs (or rather eventually mine) could rectify that situation!! 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) Even the FAA are now looking at adding more handling in the syllabus after a spate of accidents and even one Airline crash where handling has not been up to standard. This is probably the area which has got weaker in modern flight training and was stronger in the past Pace |
Its the lack of handling and landing ability not higher speeds on approach which causes broken nose wheels. I have flown with some who are not even new pilots who tense on the landing and almost seem surprised and relieved when it touches down ok. 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) Even the FAA are now looking at adding more handling in the syllabus after a spate of accidents and even one Airline crash where handling has not been up to standard. This is probably the area which has got weaker in modern flight training and was stronger in the past |
So gents I am seeing lots of generalities about "bad instructors", how about some specific practical ideas on how to make flying training better.
I sure don't have a monopoly on "good ideas" and over the years have incorporated some of the ideas I have seen on this and other forums into my own practice as an instructor. |
" Paint by numbers " teaching process rather than teaching the students to be artists. Pace |
So gents I am seeing lots of generalities about "bad instructors", how about some specific practical ideas on how to make flying training better. And the best place for such a thread would be the flight instructors forum. |
Originally Posted by Chuck Ellsworth
(Post 8372532)
Excellent idea.
And the best place for such a thread would be the flight instructors forum. |
Quote: " Paint by numbers " teaching process rather than teaching the students to be artists. That Phrase about sums up what I feel about flying! It is an art! something from the soul and something creative and not a paint by numbers exercise! Well Said Pace Nothing could be further from the truth because in my opinion the highest aspiration one can strive for in aviation is to be a top quality flight instructor. 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. When I finally let my instructors rating lapse I found a way to still teach and was able to be properly compensated for my efforts. For instance when I was in the water bombing business for ten years I was the training pilot / check pilot for a company that had nine heavy water bombers....when I was not actually in the field fire bombing I could teach and earn a good living at the same time. Another little thought I would like to put out there. When I post these thoughts / opinions I have enough self worth to use my real name and I do so to try and give more credibility to what I say.....in other words I am not in the least worried about anyone digging into my background as a pilot to find something to discredit my opinions. How about that . :) :ok: :) |
BPF
You don't get the hits in the flight instructors forum :ok: Its a bit off-putting when you wait a week for a response :E i am not an instructor! OK yes I have trained pilots up for SICs on Citations but thats it so would be kicked out of that forum :{ I Learn a lot from many here and that includes Chuck as well as BPF Pace |
I see the AAIB report is out on the PA38 crash at Cranfield. Seems the instructor mishandled the aeroplane following a partial engine failure on take off, leading to a stall / spin departure. He did get a radio call in, though!
The student on this flight is the brother of someone I know. He suffered serious and significantly life-changing injuries in the crash. A couple of years ago someone I knew suffered engine failure on take off in another PA38. He too got on the horn but failed to keep flying the aeroplane. He died. Whatever happened to: 1) Aviate 2) Navigate 3) Communicate In that order? |
1) Communicate
This comes first because you need permission for everything these days. 2) Navigate This comes second because it directly links into 1 and probably includes a moving map integrated with the radio. 3) Aviate This comes last because everybody knows how stable aircraft are designed to be these days and you've probably got an auto-pilot. Also no need to look outside because the transponder is on making you feel nice and safe and guess what? It's probably integrated with the moving map and radio! I jest of course ;) |
Maybe it's just newbie nitpicking, but having read the last few posts I get the impression that they refer to two different aspects of flying/instructing:
|
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. |
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. |
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". 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! |
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). |
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. |
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.
Originally Posted by Chuck Ellsworth
(Post 8372579)
I am not in the least worried about anyone digging into my background as a pilot to find something to discredit my opinions.
|
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. FBW |
On the contrary, it seems to be the very antithesis of paranoid. 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....:confused: 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 |
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!! |
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. |
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. 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). |
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! |
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 ??? :ugh: Chute pull for stall off VS on autopilot :ugh: Chute pull for radio failure :ugh: Chute pull for failure to fly ILS and loss of control on miss :ugh: Chute pull for failed nav display :ugh: 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 |
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 |
FOXMOTH :ok:
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 :ok: 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 :E 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 :E Pace |
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. |
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. |
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 :ok: Pace |
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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:23. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.