Instructor taking control

[Bede]

My wife (an instructor as well) and I had a friendly discussion today about when an instructor should take control from a student.

My philosophy is to take control from a student when the safety of the aircraft is jeopardized. Obviously you also take control if there is no hope of a student completing the exercise (ie. landing on the first flight), doing a demonstration, critiquing an exercise, etc. For example, a student balloons the landing and I teach that should you be out of position on landing, you do a go around. In my example, the student balloons, they recognize the need for a go around (or I tell them to go around) and the safety of the aircraft is not in doubt, the student stays in control. Obviously, if the student is about to smash the plane on the runway, I announce that I have control. Once the exercise is complete, I take control, provide a critique and the student tries again.

On the other hand, some instructor training materials seem to suggest that the instructor take control at the first mistake, correct the student and let the student start the exercise again until they master the exercise. The one example that was given is that a student does a spiral dive and levels the wings, reduces power... and the instructor takes control immediately (no reference to a safety of flight issue) because the order was reversed and the instructor has the student start over and try again.

I disagree with this quick-to-take-control approach for a number of reasons:
1) The student gets to practice the entries of each exercise more often than the recovery's.
2) The student loses out on hands on flying time when the instructor is doing more flying than the student.
3) The student loses the ability to critique their own performance once the exercise is complete.
4) Students tend to make different mistakes each time they complete an exercise and you end up chasing different mistakes.

Anecdotally, I have had students from other school tell me that they felt that their instructor would take control pre-maturely, not let them attempt take-off or landings for many hours, and generally annoy them by taking over at the slightest mistake.

If this quick-to-take-control is an appropriate training philosophy I would suggest that it would counterproductive for a student to conduct a solo flight. After all, they will make mistakes and the instructor should be taking over right away to correct. Secondly, an instructor immediately taking control robs the student of their ability to learn to correct a mistake, eg not maintaining centerline on a cross wind landing.

Thoughts?

[Schooner69A]

Bede:

Concur.

(Instructional background in pistons, jets, and helicopters)

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Secondly, an instructor immediately taking control robs the student of their ability to learn to correct a mistake, eg not maintaining centerline on a cross wind landing.

Thoughts?

This happened to me just the other day, landing in a 15G30 crosswind with loads of mechanical turbulence (IOW, beyond my current skill level), and we suspected wind shear as well. But in my case, my instructor didn't take control, I unilaterally relenquished control when I felt the situation was becoming dangerous.

So it's just as important to ask, under what circumstances should a student just bark out "You have control!"?

[Big Pistons Forever]

This happened to me just the other day, landing in a 15G30 crosswind with loads of mechanical turbulence (IOW, beyond my current skill level), and we suspected wind shear as well. But in my case, my instructor didn't take control, I unilaterally relenquished control when I felt the situation was becoming dangerous.

So it's just as important to ask, under what circumstances should a student just bark out "You have control!"?

My first reaction is why you were flying in the first place. I question the ability to learn anything in conditions that nasty. That being said I have done a lesson when it was very nasty down low but smooth air at altitude. Where I fly with strong SE winds you get ugly mechanical turbulence down low but above 5000 it is often quite calm.

In those situations I usually flew the approach myself and used it as a demo for handling high gusty crosswinds with a lot of talking about PDM and anticipating and mitigating adverse conditions like low level winds shear. Except for advanced students there was little training value in having the student fail and then I take over.

With respect to you giving control to the instructor, I personally discouraged this as if the situation was actually dangerous I would have already taken control. I worry that a student giving me the airplane is him or her giving up which isn't going to work so well if I am not there, so in general If a student spontaneously give me control I will stabilize the situation and give them the airplane back.

[PilotDAR]

I'm very much in favour of leaving the candidate pilot in control as long as I believe that doing so remains safe. If I want to take control to show the pilot a different/better way, I'll brief that first, so there is no sense than my doing so is a matter of urgency. That said, I have on a few occasions taken control suddenly when I thought things were getting out of hand fast. That was more my fault than that of the other pilot, as I should have recognized the danger sooner. For my own standard, if I can not coach the candidate pilot through the maneuver first, so they know I expect more/different control I haven't done well enough for them. I'm not flying with them so I can fly, I'm there so they can fly. Only an unsafe situation will cause me to say "I've got it".

When I have been the PF to a "company pilot" doing a design approval flight test, I've had situations where the company pilot was not comfortable. I learned the hard way, that that was my fault, inadequate briefing on my part. Yeah we're there to do some things in the plane which it should not normally be doing, but that is the point. A couple of times that has resulted in two of us trying to fly it - my bad. I changed my briefing to say that I would fly the plane through the entire maneuver (described in detail), and I would not stop flying the plane no matter what. If the company pilot wanted to take control, they would say "I have control" and I would let go. But, I added to hat that when I let go, they'd be flying and would need to have a better plan than I did, and, if they took control, it was very likely that the test point, and perhaps whole flight test to go would be incomplete, and we'd go home. Since I started briefing properly, I have never had a problem, and never had control taken from me at all.

I recall a few times (all during confined area helicopter flying) when I told my mentor pilot that I was uncomfortable, or not confident in my skills to continue, would they take over. More often that not, I was mentored to keep flying, rather than having control taken. That was very confidence building. The other pilot knew to be hyper aware of what I was doing, and they were able to judge that it was sufficiently safe for them to be comfortable to let me continue.

With that in mind, a few times while training on the water, I've had a pilot say they were uncomfortable, I mentored closely, rather than take over.

It is possible to let things go too far though, I would say that I learned that the hard way, but I don't recall what actually happened, I just got the hard way part of it. I had placed too much faith the ability of the candidate pilot, even though things looked perfect until it went wrong.

[RedBaron10]

Bede,

Completely agree. It should also be noted that our almighty documents such as the FIG and FTM are quite outdated. Things have changed quite a bit since then, and it is upsetting that we don't have anything new to review. The world is different since the 90's, our manuals should be too

For what it's worth, I've had multiple students tell me after I have flown with them for the first time that they really appreciated me having more of a hands off approach. (unless I need to be hands on, reasons for which you already listed)

RB10

[photofly]

I don't think this is difficult, in practice. Whenever a student is in control of an aircraft, the instructor should have a clear picture of the purpose for which the student has control at that moment. As soon as that purpose can no longer be met, the instructor should step in.

IF you're working *specifically* on the order of control inputs for a spiral dive recovery and the students gets that wrong, then step in. If you're working on spiral dive recoveries in general, then getting the order wrong doesn't compromise either safety or the purpose of the student flying, so let things continue.

Oftentimes the underlying purpose of the student having control is for them to detect and fix their own errors or deviations before they escalate; clearly that's an important skill for any pilot. In that case, when an error occurs that's well within the purpose of having the student fly, and so taking control would be silly.

[Big Pistons Forever]

One thing I forgot to add on my first post is it is vitally important that Instructors don't try to "help" students by giving the controls a nudge. This is a recipe for disaster as flying an aircraft by committee is not going to work. If the instructor can not get the student to address the issue with some short clear verbal commands they should say " I have control"

If I do have to take over I always try to ask the question to the student " why did I take over". The answer will tell you alot about where the students head is.

If the answer is for example "well I totally pooched that flare by pumping the elevator when the airplane ballooned instead of holding the landing attitude and waiting for the aircraft to settle towards the runway " then you are good to go

If the answer is " I have no idea" then you have a big problem you need to sort ASAP"

Finally if you are teaching in a tandem seating airplane then you should be brief a transfer of control in the event of a intercom failure or other reason you can't talk to the student. I use "the shaker is the taker" That is if the student feels the stick sharply pulsing in their hand it means that I have taken control. They are to let go of the stick and put both hands up to show me they have relinquished control

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

This happened to me just the other day, landing in a 15G30 crosswind with loads of mechanical turbulence (IOW, beyond my current skill level), and we suspected wind shear as well. But in my case, my instructor didn't take control, I unilaterally relenquished control when I felt the situation was becoming dangerous.

So it's just as important to ask, under what circumstances should a student just bark out "You have control!"?

My first reaction is why you were flying in the first place. I question the ability to learn anything in conditions that nasty. Where I fly with strong SE winds you get ugly mechanical turbulence down low but above 5000 it is often quite calm.

<snip>

With respect to you giving control to the instructor, I personally discouraged this as if the situation was actually dangerous I would have already taken control. I worry that a student giving me the airplane is him or her giving up which isn't going to work so well if I am not there, so in general If a student spontaneously give me control I will stabilize the situation and give them the airplane back.

Well, a couple of points to clarify - the situation was not dangerous on final, but I balked the touchdown - it turned ugly faster than either of us had anticipated. Also, training at YTZ, almost all crosswinds are gusty crosswinds; most are from the north, blowing through downtown and making big swirly eddies over the harbour. So finding an effective crosswind to teach the required skills can be difficult. You take what you can get.

Completely agree. It should also be noted that our almighty documents such as the FIG and FTM are quite outdated. Things have changed quite a bit since then, and it is upsetting that we don't have anything new to review. The world is different since the 90's, our manuals should be too

You must mean the 70's. But I digress.

One thing I forgot to add on my first post is it is vitally important that Instructors don't try to "help" students by giving the controls a nudge. This is a recipe for disaster as flying an aircraft by committee is not going to work. If the instructor can not get the student to address the issue with some short clear verbal commands they should say " I have control"

This is my thinking as well - there can only be one person in control of the aircraft, and it must be unmistakably known by both pilots, at all times, without exception.

Finally if you are teaching in a tandem seating airplane then you should be brief a transfer of control in the event of a intercom failure or other reason you can't talk to the student. I use "the shaker is the taker" That is if the student feels the stick sharply pulsing in their hand it means that I have taken control. They are to let go of the stick and put both hands up to show me they have relinquished control

And on this I wholeheartedly disagree. It very much contradicts your previous quote I posted. A push or pull on a yoke is not enough to know that control of the aircraft has changed. It should be communicated and acknowledged clearly and unmistakably - again, with no exceptions. But - fair point, with a com failure, could it be heard? I should put that to the test...

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

This happened to me just the other day, landing in a 15G30 crosswind with loads of mechanical turbulence (IOW, beyond my current skill level), and we suspected wind shear as well. But in my case, my instructor didn't take control, I unilaterally relenquished control when I felt the situation was becoming dangerous.

So it's just as important to ask, under what circumstances should a student just bark out "You have control!"?

My first reaction is why you were flying in the first place. I question the ability to learn anything in conditions that nasty. Where I fly with strong SE winds you get ugly mechanical turbulence down low but above 5000 it is often quite calm.

<snip>

With respect to you giving control to the instructor, I personally discouraged this as if the situation was actually dangerous I would have already taken control. I worry that a student giving me the airplane is him or her giving up which isn't going to work so well if I am not there, so in general If a student spontaneously give me control I will stabilize the situation and give them the airplane back.

Well, a couple of points to clarify - the situation was not dangerous on final, but I balked the touchdown - it turned ugly faster than either of us had anticipated. Also, training at YTZ, almost all crosswinds are gusty crosswinds; most are from the north, blowing through downtown and making big swirly eddies over the harbour. So finding an effective crosswind to teach the required skills can be difficult. You take what you can get.

Completely agree. It should also be noted that our almighty documents such as the FIG and FTM are quite outdated. Things have changed quite a bit since then, and it is upsetting that we don't have anything new to review. The world is different since the 90's, our manuals should be too

You must mean the 70's. But I digress.

One thing I forgot to add on my first post is it is vitally important that Instructors don't try to "help" students by giving the controls a nudge. This is a recipe for disaster as flying an aircraft by committee is not going to work. If the instructor can not get the student to address the issue with some short clear verbal commands they should say " I have control"

This is my thinking as well - there can only be one person in control of the aircraft, and it must be unmistakably known by both pilots, at all times, without exception.

Finally if you are teaching in a tandem seating airplane then you should be brief a transfer of control in the event of a intercom failure or other reason you can't talk to the student. I use "the shaker is the taker" That is if the student feels the stick sharply pulsing in their hand it means that I have taken control. They are to let go of the stick and put both hands up to show me they have relinquished control

And on this I wholeheartedly disagree. It very much contradicts your previous quote I posted. A push or pull on a yoke is not enough to know that control of the aircraft has changed. Turbulence, or a response to it, could do that. It should be communicated and acknowledged clearly and unmistakably - again, with no exceptions. But - fair point, with a com failure, could it be heard? I should put that to the test...

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

This happened to me just the other day, landing in a 15G30 crosswind with loads of mechanical turbulence (IOW, beyond my current skill level), and we suspected wind shear as well. But in my case, my instructor didn't take control, I unilaterally relenquished control when I felt the situation was becoming dangerous.

So it's just as important to ask, under what circumstances should a student just bark out "You have control!"?

My first reaction is why you were flying in the first place. I question the ability to learn anything in conditions that nasty. Where I fly with strong SE winds you get ugly mechanical turbulence down low but above 5000 it is often quite calm.

<snip>

With respect to you giving control to the instructor, I personally discouraged this as if the situation was actually dangerous I would have already taken control. I worry that a student giving me the airplane is him or her giving up which isn't going to work so well if I am not there, so in general If a student spontaneously give me control I will stabilize the situation and give them the airplane back.

Well, a couple of points to clarify - the situation was not dangerous on final, but I balked the touchdown - it turned ugly faster than either of us had anticipated. Also, training at YTZ, almost all crosswinds are gusty crosswinds; most are from the north, blowing through downtown and making big swirly eddies over the harbour. So finding an effective crosswind to teach the required skills can be difficult. You take what you can get.

Completely agree. It should also be noted that our almighty documents such as the FIG and FTM are quite outdated. Things have changed quite a bit since then, and it is upsetting that we don't have anything new to review. The world is different since the 90's, our manuals should be too

You must mean the 70's. But I digress.

One thing I forgot to add on my first post is it is vitally important that Instructors don't try to "help" students by giving the controls a nudge. This is a recipe for disaster as flying an aircraft by committee is not going to work. If the instructor can not get the student to address the issue with some short clear verbal commands they should say " I have control"

This is my thinking as well - there can only be one person in control of the aircraft, and it must be unmistakably known by both pilots, at all times, without exception.

Finally if you are teaching in a tandem seating airplane then you should be brief a transfer of control in the event of a intercom failure or other reason you can't talk to the student. I use "the shaker is the taker" That is if the student feels the stick sharply pulsing in their hand it means that I have taken control. They are to let go of the stick and put both hands up to show me they have relinquished control

And on this I wholeheartedly disagree. It very much contradicts your previous quote I posted. A push or pull on a yoke is not enough to know that control of the aircraft has changed. Turbulence, or a response to it, could do that. It should be communicated and acknowledged clearly and unmistakably - again, with no exceptions. But - fair point, with a com failure, could it be heard? I should put that to the test...

[airway]

Completely agree. It should also be noted that our almighty documents such as the FIG and FTM are quite outdated. Things have changed quite a bit since then, and it is upsetting that we don't have anything new to review. The world is different since the 90's, our manuals should be too

What parts are outdated?

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

What parts are outdated?

Arguably, slide rules, and less arguably, the assumption that GPS is unreliable, for starters.

[2R]

http://flyingmerch.files.wordpress.com/ ... -spock.jpg

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

http://flyingmerch.files.wordpress.com/ ... -spock.jpg

Kudos for the Trek reference. You do understand that Star Trek is fiction I hope

[Squaretail]

On the other hand, some instructor training materials seem to suggest that the instructor take control at the first mistake, correct the student and let the student start the exercise again until they master the exercise. The one example that was given is that a student does a spiral dive and levels the wings, reduces power... and the instructor takes control immediately (no reference to a safety of flight issue) because the order was reversed and the instructor has the student start over and try again.

The material out of the FIG as I recall specifies that this should happen during the “we do” portion of the demonstration performance method. The instructor demonstrates, the student is coached through what the exercise, then the student performs the exercises unaided and the instructor critiques the unaided performance. Ideally the instructor should never take control during the coaching through, as the student should be just doing as told. However, you will get students that aren’t listening, or worse combative in their training, and don’t follow the direction. Given that the first time the student is hands on doing something, it should be correct, stopping it if it isn’t is unfortunately necessary. Given the above example, if while coaching through the instructor says “reduce power” and the student levels the wings instead, the instructor has to assume that for whatever reason the student isn’t listening, or actively resisting. Things come to a full stop.

Now, if instead of the first “we do” (which should only be done once for every exercise if things are running as usual) that the student is performing, then yes the instructor only intervenes if the margins of safety are to be breached. Which in itself is a hard thing to learn, but another topic. Keep your hands in your f@#$ing lap, and don’t be flinchy. Only rank amateurs ride the controls along with the student.

[2R]

http://flyingmerch.files.wordpress.com/ ... -spock.jpg

Kudos for the Trek reference. You do understand that Star Trek is fiction I hope

Could not find a suitable Top Gun reference , must try harder

[photofly]

http://flyingmerch.files.wordpress.com/ ... -spock.jpg

Awesome!

[digits_]

Completely agree with everything. Don't touch the controls unless absolutely necessary. I can't stand instructors jumping at the controls at the first sign of imperfection. Although the worst training experience I've had was with an instructor who wasn't necessarily touching the controls, but who was treating me as an autopilot. It was IFR instruction, and he was constantly telling me what to do ("tune in VOR X, now tune that radial, ... identify this, ... call that , .... great flight!"). I didn't learn a thing, super frustrating.

[airway]

What parts are outdated?

Arguably, slide rules, and less arguably, the assumption that GPS is unreliable, for starters.

I would agree with you about the Wiz Wheel. There are so many different apps, computer programs and flight calculators now that the chances of one of them not working and you having to resort to the Wiz Wheel are low.

The chance of the GPS system going down for a few hours or even a day or two, and you having to rely on ground-based nav aids and or map reading is higher though.

The flight instructor guide and the flight training manual do have a few things in them that are debatable, but generally those two publications worked very well for me when I was a full-time instructor (CFI/Class 1/DFTE) for 8 years. Most of it is good IMO.