Powered vs. Power at idle landings.

[photofly]

Was this rhetorical?

Yes. But thanks for the reference, anyway.

Are you writing in praise of the "overhead 360" method?

I'm advised by a reliable source, that upon research, TC is about to remove the "circuit" pattern from the forced approach in the forthcoming new edition of the Flight Training Manual, and recommend the overhead 360 as the only method to be taught.

[Steve Pomroy]

Was this rhetorical?

Yes. But thanks for the reference, anyway.

You're welcome!

Are you writing in praise of the "overhead 360" method?

Yes.

I'm advised by a reliable source, that upon research, TC is about to remove the "circuit" pattern from the forced approach in the forthcoming new edition of the Flight Training Manual, and recommend the overhead 360 as the only method to be taught.

That's outstanding news. The "circuit" method is horrific and should have been abandoned years ago. The only justification I've ever heard for it is that it "looks the same" as a circuit (it doesn't), and is therefore "more familiar" to a student learning (it isn't). This justification sounds good at first blush, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Having said all of this, the circling approach has a key weakness. It requires that you are able to get to your high key at some minimum altitude. For a C-172, that minimum altitude is probably around 1,500 feet AGL (not sure about this altitude, as it's been several years since I've flown a 172, and I can count on one hand the number of circling PFLs I flew in one). Here on the Prairies, that's easy. But if you're operating over tougher terrain (read: East coast or West coast), it may not always be possible. Students need to learn some sort of alternate technique for low altitude and/or long range PFLs.

When I was teaching in the Atlantic region, it wasn't uncommon to have to use near-maximum glide range just to get to a suitable landing area. Circling wouldn't work in these situations.

Is this enough thread drift?

Cheers,
Steve
http://www.skywriters.aero
http://www.flightwriter.com

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The circling PFL technique taught to Air Force candidates is bulletproof and requires almost no judgement, just an ability to control your airspeed, use ground references, and fly a procedure.

Not to mention landing from a curving approach is oh so much easier.

[trey kule]

Ok, as we are talking about forced approaches now.

Who has been pushing this circuit approach? It is not the new class 4 instructors..It is the older, more experienced ones who should know better..
A few years back on a thread here I was told it was the safest, bestest, and only way to do a forced approach and I should be burned at the stake for suggesting different..
BTW..there is a very nice method that requires far less judgement, no key point to speak of, and much better. The military used to teach it but now apparently it has gone the way..Probably to easy .

This whole forced approach thing is taught terribly.. the engine failures always allow time to do a restart, make mayday call, brief pax. tweet and post on facebook, ........................it is all about the procedure...The whole concept of actually trying to get it safely on the ground seems to be pretty much secondary until the flight test, or it happens for real. And of course the pro's teaching it say...no big deal, not recognizing that if it happens to a low time experienced pilot they just might be a bit nervous and think it is a big deal..
While I am ranting, I read here all the time aviate, navigate, communicate, tweet,,,, as the basics for emergencies..But when it comes to training that does not seem to be where the emphasis is.

Now I have drifted so far off topic, I dont have enough rudder left to overcome it..

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Now I have drifted so far off topic, I dont have enough rudder left to overcome it..

Discussing anything about flying training is not really thread drift as long as it is aimed at improving flight training.

Feel free to keep on expressing your opinion Trey, especially when your opinion is as bang on as the above.

The whole flying training methods need to be changed.

The best way to change it is for Canada to get rid of the FTU OC requirements and allow for free enterprise in the market, like in the USA where anyone with a CFI can own and operate a flying training business.

[photofly]

BTW..there is a very nice method that requires far less judgement, no key point to speak of, and much better.

Tell us, please.

[Rookie50]

Back to approaches.

I have been taught the power approach for optimum control for short field landings. For light aircraft -- this means arriving at 500 agl on the base leg and one mile final, every time, set Vref speed, ( like short field approach speed), full flaps, then adjust pitch -- aiming point -- with power.

I do find this gives a more precise arrival point -- good for short runways. Not so good for huge us airports where they push to keep speed up on a 7 mile final, although just can slow down in last mile.

[dr.aero]

Steve...

I read your article: http://www.flightwriter.com/2011/02/ein ... razor.html

I think it was absolutely spot on! It expresses some of my frustration that I've encountered with instructors and students throughout the years I've been flying. You can simplify something for better understanding by a student, but once the simplified version becomes incorrect in any way - you've gone too far! This really ties in to what I was talking about awhile ago on here - having a minimum required intelligence and aptitude to become a pilot. Some instructors prime goal is that they can teach "anyone" and forget that they also need to ensure what they're teaching is correct! I really don't like it when flight schools advertise "anyone can learn to fly! ". Can anyone learn to drive?...

trey kule...

Spot on regarding forced approaches! I think the forced approaches in the Flight Training Manual should be broken up into two separate exercises - exactly how it's marked on the flight test - with two separate PGI lessons. First lesson should be focused on the student getting used to the approach and handling characteristics of the airplane while in the glide, judging glide using aiming points, and concluding with the student being able to consistently show that they can make the field safely. There is already a lot to teach in this first lesson and the student at this stage is probably working with near optimum work load. Adding the instruction of doing system checks and shutdown procedures while in this stage distracts the student from focusing on the primary objective of landing the airplane safely. It also takes the student's attention away from learning the flight characteristics of the airplane in this configuration - which is probably the most important teaching point with forced approaches. The second lesson should included the checks associated with trying to get the engine started, shutdown, MAYDAY calls, transponder operation, etc.

As for the 'method' of glide to use: I generally think the circling 360 approach is one of the better ones for a couple reasons. But forget about that for now. If the student is taught well from the beginning they should have a pretty good idea of how the airplane glides and wouldn't necessarily need a specific "pattern" to fly. If you can get the student to that level of judgement with his/her airplane, you've greatly helped them out. That gives them the freedom to fly the airplane in the best manner and not the only way their instructor had taught them to fly forced approaches. I could come up with a dozen different methods of flying a forced and, as long as the pilot can accurately judge the approach, they should be able to pull off each landing well. Forcing yourself to only use the circling approach could force you to not use a field because it would require an approach at a 45 degree angle to the threshold - just making up an example. A 45 is actually a nice angle to come at a field since it leaves you a few options - ideally you're aiming to intercept final at a 45, about 1/2 mile from your touchdown. This gives you options to adjust for getting sinking or rising air. On every forced approach, don't let the student get distracted with fancy maneuvering. Then to test them before they go on the flight test, give them a few random forced approaches anywhere from 500' AGL to 3000' AGL and ensure they're comfortable with all of those. The flight test engine failure can happen anywhere! It doesn't say what the minimum altitude is for the examiner to simulate the engine failure but I'd doubt they'd do it any lower than 500' AGL because you have very little time to fly before it becomes pretty serious and not just an exercise.

My point is: focus on teaching the student the basics and ensure they have a good handle and judgement of the airplane while in the glide, then focus on the miscellaneous tasks in lesson two. Show the student the circling 360 approach and show them a few others. Keep it simple and don't overload the student at this stage - it requires a fair bit of concentration, especially at the beginning, so instructors shouldn't be yapping at their students the whole way down!

Rookie...

I do find this gives a more precise arrival point

Definitely agree! Power approaches do give you more control of your airplane's flight path and helps to correct deviations in a much shorter time than most other methods - resulting in a more precise arrival! That's the main reason behind my comment I made in another thread that started this discussion.

Disclaimer: As I've said previously, there are times where power-off approaches should be made for practice/fun and there are aircraft that require a different approach method and the Pitts is one - mostly because you can't see sh*t out the front on a 'normal' approach!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The best way to change it is for Canada to get rid of the FTU OC requirements and allow for free enterprise in the market, like in the USA where anyone with a CFI can own and operate a flying training business.

This would attract older more experienced pilots who let their instructors rating lapse and have reached a point in their career where they want to quit flying for whoever and want a retirement job that keeps them sort of busy.

It will never happen though because T.C. is still thinking in the stone age.

[Colonel Sanders]

get rid of the FTU OC requirements

I don't think that will ever happen, .. Three reasons:

1) control. I suspect TC would like to stamp out freelance
training altogether - even the word freelance is a pejorative -
because it gives TC very tight control over flight training
through the FTU structure

2) ATAC lobbying. ATAC has the same objectives as TC
here - get rid of non-FTU instruction

3) supervision of new instructors. I guess this is a good
idea.

Note that in the USA, the very first day you get your
flight instructor rating, you can offer flight training on
your very own aircraft. All you have to do, is 100 hour
checks on it. If you dared to do that in Canada, you
would go to jail because you would be a very bad person.

Note that via the IPL, TC accepts products of the above
training at par with Canadian licence holders. Hm.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Colonel, when I owned a flight school I also had an AMO and in my hangar washroom I had a ATAC logo pasted in the urinal.

[Colonel Sanders]

I had a ATAC logo pasted in the urinal

Heh. Remember, what ATAC is doing is not a lot
different from what the milk marketing board is
doing - a special interest group which is screwing
the consumer (taxpayer) with higher prices, for their
own benefit.

Flight training is MUCH more expensive in Canada
than in the USA, and everyone is fine with that.
Canadians like high taxes and high prices.

It's very Canadian. In fact, every Canadian would
like to be a member of a special interest group
which charges higher than market prices for their
own benefit, and screws the consumer.

Does anyone see a problem with this economic model?

Anyone? Bueller?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Like many, many Canadian pilots I left Canada and worked off shore until the end of my career because I could not justify working in a socialist dictatorship.

The last time I flew a commercial flight as a working pilot in Canada was in 1996.

I hope I have not offended you by telling you about my hangar uirnal Colonel.

[Steve Pomroy]

Not to mention landing from a curving approach is oh so much easier.

It's not that difficult and is amenable to training. In any case, it doesn't need to be oh so easy. It needs to be something a low time student pilot can learn and retain -- so that 2 years after getting a license and flying once or twice a month, they can still do it in an emergency (hence the need for a technique that requires the absolute minimum of judgement).

BTW..there is a very nice method that requires far less judgement, no key point to speak of, and much better. The military used to teach it but now apparently it has gone the way..Probably to easy .

I'm guessing you're talking about the "overhead 360" (or whatever you like to call it) method. This is what the military uses currently, and as noted above it is bulletproof. I don't know how long that method has been in use by the military, but the time is measured in decades -- at least back into the 70's, maybe further.

The best way to change it is for Canada to get rid of the FTU OC requirements and allow for free enterprise in the market, like in the USA where anyone with a CFI can own and operate a flying training business.

+1, except I think the requirements to become an instructor would need to be significantly increased. Come to think of it, they need to be increased anyway.

Cheers,
Steve
http://www.skywriters.aero
[url]htp://www.flightwriter.com[/url]

[trey kule]

Mr Fly.

I know this sounds like a copy out, but face to face, it takes about three minutes to explain the simple way to do this..almost impossible over the internet in general (need diagrams..beyond my capability), and certainly not in a public forum where 12 people will interpret it 13 different ways.

If your question was asked in sincerity PM me an email address.

[Colonel Sanders]

Powerpoint!

I can't believe I said that ...

[trey kule]

Power points are good and have their uses, but not for teaching this... The principles and basics OK. But the variables require being able to discuss them to get the student to apply the basic principles.
Or maybe I am just to old stupid and lazy to use this modern media form of teaching..

[Shiny Side Up]

Flight training is MUCH more expensive in Canada
than in the USA, and everyone is fine with that.

This hasn't really been my experience. On paper, the USA always looks like a much better deal. But in reality, the bang for the buck is often the same. It pays to shop around I find, the big thing the US has over us is variety of service. You have more to shop from down there. Price-wise, cheaper fuel there seems to make the most difference, I found down there though it was really tough to get anything for a quoted price, you always ended up paying more and there were a lot more people who'd outright try and gouge you. If you think instructors get paid peanuts here, you only need to take a sampling down there for what a really bad wage is. This of course gives them far more incentive to attempt to over charge you, or ding you for whatever services they can.

One of the problems with the FTU OC system is that up here it means that there is very little movement and innovation amongst the flight schools, if they wanted to they could easily forma cartel of sorts. This makes more flight training places stable than south of the border. A very small plus which of course doesn't outweigh the problems it has caused. Fly by night operations I found are way more common down there so if one must be buyer beware here, you could times that by ten if you're looking down there.

That said there are some real deals if you go out of your way to find them, the same can be said of up here, there just happens to be less to shop from. A point of note is that in general average Canadians are doing better than your average Americans, consequently they can spend more money on flight training and the market prices reflect that. Supply and demand, and all of that free market economics at work.