What's your favourite euphemism for a practice forced approach?

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I just learned today that "Code Foxtrot" means a that a "go-around" will be issued to the aircraft as it attempts to land.

Careful... some of us are still in training here. Don't give away all the secrets...

[digits_]

Why would you give 30 seconds notice? What good would that do?

You're the one who likes surprises - you justify that. I don't need to justify the "benefit" or otherwise of 30 seconds notice.

Okay... I guess you don't. In a discussion it's often recommended both sides make their case, as to increase understanding of each other's point of view.

Why would you *not* try to surprise a student every now and then?

I'd be interested to know how many instructors try to occasionally surprise their students. I honestly think that would be the majority. You're the first one I've encountered who seems to be opposed to the idea.

[photofly]

Why would you *not* try to surprise a student every now and then?

Because there’s no benefit to doing so. If you teach by example that surprise is worthwhile in this scenario you are implicitly teaching that reacting to a power loss requires lightning reflexes and instant action. Which it doesn’t.

[digits_]

If you teach by example that surprise is worthwhile in this scenario you are implicitly teaching that reacting to a power loss requires lightning reflexes and instant action.

That is not true. On the contrary, it gives you a chance to evaluate how a student deals with surprise. If you notice lightning reflexes and thinking without acting, that's the perfect time to deal with it.

To clarify, I'm not teaching that surprise is worthwile. I'm trying to convince you that using surprise as a teaching aid has value. I don't tell the student 'i'm going to surprise you for training'', because that would take away from the surprise and the emphasis should not be on the surprise. A surprise is simply something unexpected, not stressing the student out and yelling like a drill sargent to make sure they do something quickly.

[photofly]

. I don't tell the student 'i'm going to surprise you for training''

You don’t need to. You tell them this by example, the first time you surprise them. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

The more I think about your instructor and your cross country experience, the more he sounds like a disrespectful pillock. Training is a collaborative activity, and needs trust. I don’t believe there’s a place for deliberately making someone feel small or stupid to teach them a lesson. It doesn’t work as a parent, and I don’t think it works on adults either.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I don’t believe there’s a place for deliberately making someone feel small or stupid to teach them a lesson. It doesn’t work as a parent, and I don’t think it works on adults either.

I can't speak for everyone - but making me feel small and stupid works for me.

[digits_]

The more I think about your instructor and your cross country experience, the more he sounds like a disrespectful pillock. Training is a collaborative activity, and needs trust. I don’t believe there’s a place for deliberately making someone feel small or stupid to teach them a lesson. It doesn’t work as a parent, and I don’t think it works on adults either.

I don't think he was. Learning isn't always fun. Your instructor doesn't need to be your friend -althoug he sort of was in the end-. There was never a lack of trust, and I didn't interpret it as trying to make me feel stupid. If the intended effect was to make the lesson last, he succeeded.

There is a bit of a culture difference in training in Europe vs Canada, but if the price to pay for some surprise lesson is that Canadian students think I can be a bit of a disrespectful pillock, then that's a price I'm willing to pay. People need to make mistakes. The more mistakes you can get them to make during training, the less mistakes they'll make once they have their license in my opinion.

Once you got the basics down, let's say after 20 hours of flying, the biggest danger is attitude and knowing yourself and your limits. It's not the technical flying anymore. I find that unexpected situations make me think more about those things. If everything is scripted and pre planned, it becomes a bit of a paint by numbers, monkey see monkey do type of thing. Sure, there needs to be standardization, but I think it is going a bit too far,

Going off on a bit of a tangent, but if we consider an organisation like Flight Safety for example. It's a bit in between the typical flight school and the airline world. They train you to get your typerating or to renew it. I've been to a few of those sessions. It's all scripted. Learn which buttons to push and you'll pass the test. There is no decision making, no critical thinking, nothing. Is that a problem? Apparently not to the regulator, but I find it such a waste of time. It could be so much more. It got to the point where I asked the instructor to stop the pre flight briefing and not tell me what was going to happen. How will you know how you perform with an in flight emergency if the whole emergency is discussed before flight? Or a diversion if you know where you'll divert to? It turns into a show. Give people time to fail, 'surprise' them. See how they react. That's where the learning happens. It's not disrespectful to point out flaws in someone's skills or knowledge. You can't improve if you don't know what to work on.

Anyway, rant over

[Squaretail]

Thirdly: the chance of an engine failure occurring close enough to an aerodrome (in Canada) for it to be useful is nil.

All of the engine power losses I've had (5) occurred within gliding distance of a runway. So the probability is higher than you may think. There's lots of reasons for that, though in general I agree with your sentiments on the "surprise" aspect of training.

[photofly]

Thirdly: the chance of an engine failure occurring close enough to an aerodrome (in Canada) for it to be useful is nil.

All of the engine power losses I've had (5) occurred within gliding distance of a runway. So the probability is higher than you may think. There's lots of reasons for that, though in general I agree with your sentiments on the "surprise" aspect of training.

You are simultaneously both the luckiest and unluckiest (5!) pilot in the world then :-O

I don't think he was....
There is a bit of a culture difference in training in Europe vs Canada, but if the price to pay for some surprise lesson is that Canadian students think I can be a bit of a disrespectful pillock, ...
Once you got the basics down, let's say after 20 hours of flying, the biggest danger is attitude and knowing yourself and your limits. It's not the technical flying anymore. ...
Going off on a bit of a tangent, but if we consider an organisation like Flight Safety for example. It's a bit in between the typical flight school and the airline world. ...
Give people time to fail, 'surprise' them. See how they react. That's where the learning happens.

I think I fundamentally disagree with almost every substantive point in this post, in tone, if not in pure content. Way off the thread topic though.

I don't think the purpose of my instructor at the time was to see if I could fly the engine failure exercise, but it was more of a tool to show me that even though my navigation was going very well, I was missing some pretty obvious things, aka an airport witin a few miles.

This "give you enough rope and wait for you to hang yourself, to teach you a lesson" is really bad pedagogy.

Lining up for that grassy field and then being told there was an airport close by was pretty humbling and one of the lessons I remember most.

Whereas the real lesson should have been that you successfully lined up for a grass field to make a safe outcome from an emergency situation. If your instructor did it (as you say) deliberately, because he knew you were not aware of the airfield, therefore intending to embarrass you by bringing the omission to your attention as a significant failure after you thought the teaching point was something else, that's dishonest and disrespectful. He intentionally mislead you. And that's why he's a pillock.

I am still not seeing the element of surprise being necessary or important in your story though. Sorry.

[trey kule]

On Topic. Never heard of one before this thread. And I expect if I do hear one on the radio I will be be asking the pilot to explain what they are saying.
Cutsesie is not a great plan if there are other aircraft around who are not in on the latest FTU buzz words. It is not communication unless everyone understands the meaning.


As to the “surprise” element. While scenario based training can be, and is, valuable at the advanced training levels, it has crept down into basic training, and has become more of a teach by test method. For example.. instead of a demo, practice on a forced approach, going through the procedures slowly the first time or two, the student is “surprised”. Then, under the guise of “learning” they are being tested. Surprising students is not teaching...It is testing. And as a teaching of basics it is not, IMO, at all, the best method. But it seems to be the flavour of the day for those raised on fantasy video games where that is how they learn the game. And if the student doesn’t mind getting their ppl in 80 hours, no harm done.

[digits_]

As to the “surprise” element. While scenario based training can be, and is, valuable at the advanced training levels, it has crept down into basic training, and has become more of a teach by test method. For example.. instead of a demo, practice on a forced approach, going through the procedures slowly the first time or two, the student is “surprised”. Then, under the guise of “learning” they are being tested. Surprising students is not teaching...It is testing. And as a teaching of basics it is not, IMO, at all, the best method. But it seems to be the flavour of the day for those raised on fantasy video games where that is how they learn the game. And if the student doesn’t mind getting their ppl in 80 hours, no harm done.

To clarify, that's not what I'm recommending. The surprises I mentioned in the earlier posts are more of an evaluation part for students getting close to the check ride, and a 'get to know yourself' exercise. I don't recommend doing it every lesson either. I'd estimate all 'surprises' one student gets during their PPL course would maybe take an hour to complete. But it's still some practice and honing skills as well. I don't consider it lost time.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My personal experience has been that enough unexpected events will occur naturally in flight training that you don't need to manufacture "surprise" events.

Personally my pet peeve is about how flight training generally teaches the forced approach. It is almost always about getting a good mark on the flight test. The problem with that is the flight test evaluates the procedure for after the aircraft has a total power loss.

However the reality is that depending on what statistics you use, between half and three quarters of all engine failures are directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot. Fuel exhaustion and/or mismanagement and carb icing feature prominently in the accident stats yet they are completely within the control of the pilot.

The flight test scenario represents an aircraft that had planned and verified adequate fuel, a full preflight, a normal runup and normal indications on the engine gauges, having a sudden and complete power loss. While this is possible it is the least likely scenario to actually occur in the real world.

When I teach the forced approach lesson I divide the PGI Into 3 parts.

The first part is how to avoid the engine failing in the first place. This is a review of the common pilot induced engine failures and specific action(s) the pilot can take to avoid being "that guy"

The second part is getting the power back. I emphasize to my students the importance of an effective "cause" check and when in flight I will terminate any practice forced approach where the cause check is not properly carried out and restart the exercise. In this second part we also discuss strategies to handle the partial power loss scenario, as the statistics suggest that partial power losses occur at least twice as often as total power failures

The third part is when it is clear usable power can't be restored and involves the traditional lesson on how to to fly the forced approach. As an aside I don't go for all those complicated FTU mnemonics on how to chose a field. I tell my students "close, clear (of approach obstructions), flat; in that order are the considerations.

I would also suggest that Instructors set students up for success for the forced approach scenario from the first lesson. They do this by showing good airmanship, a complete practical understanding of aircraft systems, attention to detail on the walk around, and checklist discipline.

For example after the students can do their own walk around I usually see an instructor just walk straight to the airplane and get. In this scenario I always physically check the fuel quantity with a look in the tank and a cap security check for the oil dipstick and then do a "360" check. That is a circle of the airplane looking for anything hanging or dripping. Always, every time. I think this not only makes a pilot induced engine failure less likely it also sends a message to the student. The boring, unsexy everyday actions are important.

Finally if you want to "surprise" your students here are 3 ways

1) Instead of pulling the throttle back tell your student you see smoke coming up from the engine and smell something burning. This will lead the student to shut down the engine and initiate a forced approach.

2) Instead of reducing power to idle reduce it to about 1700 Rpm ( for a Cessna 150/152/172)

3) At random intervals cover the engine gauges ( ie oil pressure/temp and/or ammeter) and ask the student what they were indicating. This will drive awareness of the importance of monitoring the health of the engine and systems in flight and will hopefully become automatic and therefore make it more likely the pilot will see an engine or system problem early.

[digits_]

Am I understanding correctly that none of you ever do a simulated engine failure during a cross-country unless it was briefed on the ground and the student knew it was going to happen?

[Big Pistons Forever]

The purpose of the cross country dual training is to teach the flight planning, navigational, and weather/ situational awareness skills and knowledge to safety fly a cross country flight to anywhere, not just the approved FTU solo cross country route.

I have never done a forced approach exercise on a cross country dual flight. However at appropriate times during the flight there will be some "what if questions" one of which could include an immanent loss of power situation.

[photofly]

Am I understanding correctly that none of you ever do a simulated engine failure during a cross-country unless it was briefed on the ground and the student knew it was going to happen?

I’m not sure why anyone would benefit from knowing it was going to happen. The response only needs a couple of seconds to prepare. That’s exactly the same argument that there’s no point making it a surprise.

You don’t need to brief it on the ground any more than you need to brief a request to demonstrate a power off stall.

[Conflicting Traffic]

Am I understanding correctly that none of you ever do a simulated engine failure during a cross-country unless it was briefed on the ground and the student knew it was going to happen?

I can't speak for others, but if I'm planning to conduct a forced approach on a training flight, that gets briefed along with the method of simulation (i.e. - "I will close the throttle and verbalize 'simulated engine failure'"). However, depending on the stage of training, the 'when', 'where', and 'what scenario' information may be omitted.

I think that once the basic skill of a forced approach is mastered, the value of a "surprise" forced approach is in teaching students not to be surprised.

[trey kule]

after the students can do their own walk around I usually see an instructor just walk straight to the airplane and get. In

I could not agree more. A couple other observations on my part as well, but I am fairly confident one or two would characterize it as instructor bashing, so I will pass on posting it.

Students are more influenced by what they see their instructor doing than , I believe, instructors think.

Also agree that a x country should be a stand alone exercise. Notwithstanding the cockpit talk of what if . But actually doing them..No.

[tsgarp]

The amount of notice you give a student regarding a simulated engine failure is entirely dependant on where that student is in their training. Absolute beginner students require significant lead time for a simulated engine failure. More advanced students require less notice. Licensed pilots should require no notice. The key take away here is that the complexity and difficulty of any situation you present to a student must be based on the demonstrated abilities of that student. Excessive complexity/difficulty leads to cognitive overload and impairs learning. Overly simplistic situations provide no challenge and hence no learning. Also bear in mind that what is too complex for one student may be to simple for another; it is all driven by individual skill level.

[trey kule]

Absolute beginner students (pre solo) , only need to learn engine failure on departure and in the circuit. They do not need to get any other forced approached training, until after they leave the circuit and start their upper air work. If they have an engine failure solo, it will be within 1000 AGL or less. There will be no restart attempt, no pax briefing...maybe no full shutdown other than fuel and electrical. Mayday call? If there is time.

The first forced approach should be done as a demo/ participation, in really slow motion.
Then the student should practise. Once the student has things under control, then an introduction of some variables. In my opinion that is teaching, and learning.
Students need to learn what to do dependent on the variables involved. They do not learn that from being surprised. Not to say, that given lots of extra dual, they will not eventually figure it out.

I seldom found many stand alone lessons, but on the first dual cross country, the student needs to focus on just that. There is lots to learn. Where the sun is relative to your direction. Altitude, and holding a heading. Checks and corrections. Map reading..when to begin the descent.I could go on. To much to learn and practice to start throwing in surprise evaluations.
Fine to let the student relax and chat about the what ifs though

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Absolute beginner students (pre solo) , only need to learn engine failure on departure and in the circuit. They do not need to get any other forced approached training, until after they leave the circuit and start their upper air work.

Agreed.

I seldom found many stand alone lessons, but on the first dual cross country, the student needs to focus on just that. There is lots to learn. Where the sun is relative to your direction. Altitude, and holding a heading. Checks and corrections. Map reading..when to begin the descent.I could go on. To much to learn and practice to start throwing in surprise evaluations.

Wait wut? Hold on, nobody told me that becoming a mediocre pilot would involve homework... Wait wut? The sun is a factor?

The amount of notice you give a student regarding a simulated engine failure is entirely dependant on where that student is in their training. Absolute beginner students require significant lead time for a simulated engine failure. More advanced students require less notice. Licensed pilots should require no notice. The key take away here is that the complexity and difficulty of any situation you present to a student must be based on the demonstrated abilities of that student. Excessive complexity/difficulty leads to cognitive overload and impairs learning. Overly simplistic situations provide no challenge and hence no learning. Also bear in mind that what is too complex for one student may be to simple for another; it is all driven by individual skill level.

Well - I am a licensed pilot. I haven't flown on my own merits in 20 years, but I am a licensed pilot. I've only flown gliders - but I am a licensed pilot. And may I remind you, every approach in a glider is a forced approach. I do not doubt my ability to land a small aircraft, but I doubt my ability to walk away from those landings. But I am a licensed pilot. I'm still a lousy pilot, but I am a licensed pilot. I am fortunate to have a great instructor.

I do not think your argument is as simple as you think it is.