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

[photofly]

It's a little bit like overhearing people talking about someone's "junk" or "ladybits", but overheard in the circuit at a nearby airport, was a trainer asking for a "Bravo". My home base has everyone asking for a "sim-echo". Why the reticence, and what else have you heard a practice forced approach called?

[Pilotdaddy]

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

I also just learned today that the codification of these maneuvers were meant for instructors to signal to tower your intent, all the while keeping the surprise intact for your student. Although, I can only see this working once or twice... the student should be able to put two and two together when a "Bravo" always precedes an "oops, your engine died".

[rookiepilot]

Change letters daily.
By the time the student figures it out, they will have passed their ride.

[photofly]

I don't think it's to surprise a student; I understood (probably wrong) it was to avoid anyone listening on a scanner getting the wrong idea (or perhaps less romantically just to keep a clear audible distinction, like "ready for departure" instead of "ready for takeoff".

I"m also fairly sure that surprising a student doesn't advance learning or testing. I'm pretty sure airlines pilots know more or less what's coming in a simulator check, and they spend a lot of money researching this kind of thing.

[Conflicting Traffic]

I've never heard of any of these codes. They seem contrary to the practice of clear communication to help everyone on frequency maintain situational awareness.

Although at one place I worked, we had an arrangement with the tower to ask for a "training 6-pack". Then the tower would give us 1) 360 on downwind, 2) extended downwind, 3) 270 to base, 4) go-around, 5) runway change, and 6) sim. comm. failure. The advantage to asking for the whole package was that we didn't have to play guessing games to figure out which one was convenient traffic-wise at any given time. We'd just ask for the whole thing at the beginning of the flight, and tower would give us each exercise in whatever order and at whatever time was convenient for them.

[Flightgame]

I've never heard of any of these codes. They seem contrary to the practice of clear communication to help everyone on frequency maintain situational awareness.

Although at one place I worked, we had an arrangement with the tower to ask for a "training 6-pack". Then the tower would give us 1) 360 on downwind, 2) extended downwind, 3) 270 to base, 4) go-around, 5) runway change, and 6) sim. comm. failure. The advantage to asking for the whole package was that we didn't have to play guessing games to figure out which one was convenient traffic-wise at any given time. We'd just ask for the whole thing at the beginning of the flight, and tower would give us each exercise in whatever order and at whatever time was convenient for them.

Training 6-pack ? That's brilliant !

[Big Pistons Forever]

I just ask for a “PFL”.

Knowing what is coming doesn’t seem to give students an advantage. The good ones ace it, the not so good ones often seem to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

[digits_]

I"m also fairly sure that surprising a student doesn't advance learning or testing.

I find it does wonders to adjust a student attitude to the desired levels. Or to show from which point you can/can not make the runway. I'd like to think it trains that sixth sense of looking for possible landing spots while flying cross country, or it might make people a bit more cautious flying over big lakes without proper survival gear.

I'm pretty sure airlines pilots know more or less what's coming in a simulator check, and they spend a lot of money researching this kind of thing.

Not sure how that's relevant? It's not scripted by choice or to improve learning, it's scripted to put as many manoeuvres in there as efficiently as possible to be legal in the minimum amount of hours. First priority is staying legal, second priority might be to learn/practice something.

[photofly]

I find it does wonders to adjust a student attitude to the desired levels.

I am not a fan of trying to shock people into thinking correctly. If that's necessary, it's not something to fix in the air.

Or to show from which point you can/can not make the runway.

Not sure why that's connected to the element of surprise: you can try one from all sorts of pre-agreed places and learn that.

it might make people a bit more cautious flying over big lakes without proper survival gear.

Again, I don't see why this is connected to surprise, nor have I found the need to add to people's natural caution about doing this. It probably varies person-to-person anyway.

I'm pretty sure airlines pilots know more or less what's coming in a simulator check, and they spend a lot of money researching this kind of thing.

Not sure how that's relevant? It's not scripted by choice or to improve learning, it's scripted to put as many manoeuvres in there as efficiently as possible to be legal in the minimum amount of hours. First priority is staying legal, second priority might be to learn/practice something.

And yet, it seems to work. Primary flight training also has the goal of efficiency and meeting requirements, as well as being effective. If there was a much better way of doing things then manufacturers, airlines and safety organizations would be pressing for change, and eventually government regulation would follow.

Responding to an engine failure is a matter of confidently and smoothly taking the correct actions, which is not best done suddenly or by reflex action. There are very few flying scenarios that you can't make worse by rushing. And most real power loss scenarios are preceded by some warning.

If you could simulate the fear and panic of the unknown in training, that could be helpful, but for as long as you both know the throttle was closed deliberately, I don't see a lot of difference between no warning, three seconds warning, or thirty seconds warning.

[Aviatard]

Waterloo tower does this. I guess the intent was to allow some surprise factor for a simulated engine failure practice. I’m with Photofly in that I don’t really think it accomplishes anything useful.

[digits_]

I find it does wonders to adjust a student attitude to the desired levels.

I am not a fan of trying to shock people into thinking correctly. If that's necessary, it's not something to fix in the air.

Shocking is a bit extreme. Merely a little bit of a wake up call that, for example, flying at 500 ft over the bush is usually not the best choice if there is a highway 4 miles off track.

I'm pretty sure airlines pilots know more or less what's coming in a simulator check, and they spend a lot of money researching this kind of thing.

Not sure how that's relevant? It's not scripted by choice or to improve learning, it's scripted to put as many manoeuvres in there as efficiently as possible to be legal in the minimum amount of hours. First priority is staying legal, second priority might be to learn/practice something.

And yet, it seems to work. Primary flight training also has the goal of efficiency and meeting requirements, as well as being effective. If there was a much better way of doing things then manufacturers, airlines and safety organizations would be pressing for change, and eventually government regulation would follow.

Just because it seems to work, doesn't mean it is the best option out there. Something that seems to work for a CPL/ATPL pilot who flies the plane 800 hours/year might not work as well for a PPL who flies with an instructor once every 2 years and flies 15 hours/year himself.

Responding to an engine failure is a matter of confidently and smoothly taking the correct actions, which is not best done suddenly or by reflex action. There are very few flying scenarios that you can't make worse by rushing. And most real power loss scenarios are preceded by some warning.

Who says anything about rushing? Dealing with an unexpected simulated engine failure does not mean people have to rush. If anything, that's usually a valuable piece of feedback, explaining/teaching the student they don't have to rush. The initial surprise seems to trigger that.

I'm actually surprised (pun intended) that you don't seem to surprise your students with an engine failure. Do you always brief it?

Every instructor I've flown with and where engine failures were done, gave me engine failures without telling me when it would happen. I found that very valuable. If it catches you off guard a couple of times, you'll pay more attention the next time.

If you could simulate the fear and panic of the unknown in training, that could be helpful, but for as long as you both know the throttle was closed deliberately, I don't see a lot of difference between no warning, three seconds warning, or thirty seconds warning.

Wouldn't you say that surprise gets you closer to the fear and panic mindset vs telling people about it in advance?

[trey kule]

. Responding to an engine failure is a matter of confidently and smoothly taking the correct actions, which is not best done suddenly or by reflex action. There are very few flying scenarios that you can't make worse by rushing. And most real power loss scenarios are preceded by some warning.

This should be in the FIG.
Hammered into the brain of every Class 4 wannabee,

And demonstrated to the Flight Test Examiner.

[photofly]

Just because it seems to work, doesn't mean it is the best option out there. Something that seems to work for a CPL/ATPL pilot who flies the plane 800 hours/year might not work as well for a PPL who flies with an instructor once every 2 years and flies 15 hours/year himself.

I don’t think there’s any form of training that works for someone who flies that little. They should either fly more or give up. Not a popular opinion in these egalitarian parts, but that’s how I feel.

Wouldn't you say that surprise gets you closer to the fear and panic mindset vs telling people about it in advance?

From what I recall of my training, knowing what was coming made me more fearful that having it presented suddenly

. If it catches you off guard a couple of times, you'll pay more attention the next time.

Pay more attention to what? Say more.

[digits_]

Just because it seems to work, doesn't mean it is the best option out there. Something that seems to work for a CPL/ATPL pilot who flies the plane 800 hours/year might not work as well for a PPL who flies with an instructor once every 2 years and flies 15 hours/year himself.

I don’t think there’s any form of training that works for someone who flies that little. They should either fly more or give up. Not a popular opinion in these egalitarian parts, but that’s how I feel.

Maybe, but those people are still flying. A little bit more intensity could make the lessons stick more.

From what I recall of my training, knowing what was coming made me more fearful that having it presented suddenly

Well for students like that, I would use the surprise to show them there is nothing to fear. A surprise set up for success can be very helpful for a student with some fears, whereas a surprise set up for failure, can help to adjust an over confident student.

. If it catches you off guard a couple of times, you'll pay more attention the next time.

Pay more attention to what? Say more.

I got caught twice on a "long" and "boring" cross country as a student with an unexpected simulated engine failure that happened within a few miles of an airport, and I was about to land in a field. These examples increased my situational awareness quite a bit the next few flihgts. It didn't happen again.

If we would have briefed forced landings at airport X before departure, it would have been a completely different exercise and wouldn't have learned nearly as much from it.

I do think surprises are a valuable learning tool. It's as close as you can get to replicating the feeling of actual emergencies. Depending on the airplane, you can pull an oil pressure gauge CB and observe how long it takes for the student to recognize it. Much more interesting and startling than just saying "hey, simulated low oil pressure".

How many students follow all the procedures they have been taught one year after they get their license? Intentionally or not, quite a few start to cut a few corners. It's my hope that those small surprises remind them to not go too crazy.

[photofly]

I got caught twice on a "long" and "boring" cross country as a student with an unexpected simulated engine failure that happened within a few miles of an airport, and I was about to land in a field. These examples increased my situational awareness quite a bit the next few flihgts. It didn't happen again.

If we would have briefed forced landings at airport X before departure, it would have been a completely different exercise and wouldn't have learned nearly as much from it.

I might be misunderstanding, because if I do understand correctly, I'm horrified.

Firstly It's an absolute requirement to brief all suitable diversion airfields on or close to the route prior to departure. I cannot conceive of a well prepared student departing on a cross country unaware of an aerodrome en route - to use as waypoints and reporting points on the radio, if for nothing else. I'm sure you can't either - so that's why I think I must be misunderstanding.

Secondly, if you happen to be over an airfield at the time of an engine failure (lucky you) by all means use it for a landing. Otherwise, I think the very worst lesson is "there's an airport nearby, let's see if we can make it." Forget the "best" field at some uncertain distance and pick something that will do that is close. Preferably very close. In your example, as you phrased it, landing in the field was absolutely the right choice vs. an airport "a few miles" away.

Thirdly: the chance of an engine failure ocuring close enough to an aerodrome (in Canada) for it to be useful is nil. What you experienced was a highly artificial end to an exercise, that was of no practical use in training people for how actually to react to a loss of power in cross country cruise. Picking and using a real field would have had much greater training power.

Depending on the airplane, you can pull an oil pressure gauge CB and observe how long it takes for the student to recognize it. Much more interesting and startling than just saying "hey, simulated low oil pressure".

Or you get justifiably thumped into a pulp by the student (after landing, if they have manners, or before, if they don't) for pulling CBs. Isn't there a whole other thread about the wisdom or otherwise of that? Don't mess with the integrity of the airplane to fool people, as a joke, or even for teaching purposes. It's not worth it.

[digits_]

I got caught twice on a "long" and "boring" cross country as a student with an unexpected simulated engine failure that happened within a few miles of an airport, and I was about to land in a field. These examples increased my situational awareness quite a bit the next few flihgts. It didn't happen again.

If we would have briefed forced landings at airport X before departure, it would have been a completely different exercise and wouldn't have learned nearly as much from it.

I might be misunderstanding, because if I do understand correctly, I'm horrified.

Firstly It's an absolute requirement to brief all suitable diversion airfields on or close to the route prior to departure. I can't imagine a situation where someone would depart on a cross country without a knowledge of other airports close to track. And I'd expect them to be used as waypoints, and reporting points on the radio. I cannot conceive of a well prepared student departing on a cross country unaware of an aerodrome en route. I'm sure you can't either - so that's why I think I must be misunderstanding.

If you would have asked me where the airports were, when we would encounter them, I would be able to tell you all that info, on the ground before the flight, or during the flight if you want.

It's been many years, but I believe we were cruising around 7000 ft AGL, and it was a 3 hour flight. There were other major landmarks (towers, railways, highways), so the airports were actually not the most prominent feature, and at that moment not really used for navigation. We were well above their airspace. They were rather small airports, so no terminal airspace or anything. The flight was actually going pretty well. 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.

Secondly, if you happen to be over an airfield at the time of an engine failure (lucky you) by all means use it for a landing. Otherwise, I think the very worst lesson is "there's an airport nearby, let's see if we can make it." Forget the "best" field at some uncertain distance and pick something that will do that is close. Preferably very close. In your example, as you phrased it, landing in the field was absolutely the right choice vs. an airport "a few miles" away.

Maybe, but we would for sure have made the airpot if I had known it was there, we had 7000 ft to lose. 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.

This was in Europe by the way, so no section lines and airports in the middle of nowhere. Not that it matters much, but might explain a bit why the navigation was more about other landmarks.

Depending on the airplane, you can pull an oil pressure gauge CB and observe how long it takes for the student to recognize it. Much more interesting and startling than just saying "hey, simulated low oil pressure".

Or you get justifiably thumped into a pulp by the student (after landing, if they have manners, or before, if they don't) for pulling CBs. Isn't there a whole other thread about the wisdom or otherwise of that?

I'm aware people disagree. I know it took me 3 minutes in the circuit to notice my oil pressure was low. I'd checked it 2 times during that time. If you'd asked me, I would have bet everything was fine. It' was my first encounter with confirmation bias-style human factors. I'm grateful my instructor pulled the circuit breaker at that point.

[digits_]

Thirdly: the chance of an engine failure ocuring close enough to an aerodrome (in Canada) for it to be useful is nil. What you experienced was a highly artificial end to an exercise, that was of no practical use in training people for how actually to react to a loss of power in cross country cruise. Picking and using a real field would have had much greater training power.

Sure, it's unlikely. The point of the exercise was not necessarily to land at that field. The effect of the surprise was used to teach me to be prepared at all times, not to get tunnel vision and be aware of yoru surroundings. Even though I thought all that stuff was fine, it was a great learning moment to show me that I was lacking in that area. Without a surprise, how could this have been demonstrated so well?

The engine failure was a means to an end, the surprise was what was really necessary. We were discussing the value of surprises during flight training, which is why I brought it up.

[photofly]

I'm having difficulty in putting these things together:

If you would have asked me where the airports were, when we would encounter them, I would be able to tell you all that info, on the ground before the flight, or during the flight if you want.

even though my navigation was going very well, I was missing some pretty obvious things, aka an airport witin a few miles.

If you had thirty seconds notice that your instructor was going to ask you to demonstrate a forced approach then either one of two outcomes would have ensued:

• You would have remained similarly oblivious to your surroundings, and would have learned the same lesson, without the surprise
• Or you would have remember the airfield, and you never thereafter would have missed an airfield en-route for that purpose.

So, I'm still not seeing the importance of surprise here.

[digits_]

I'm having difficulty in putting these things together:

If you would have asked me where the airports were, when we would encounter them, I would be able to tell you all that info, on the ground before the flight, or during the flight if you want.

even though my navigation was going very well, I was missing some pretty obvious things, aka an airport witin a few miles.

If you had thirty seconds notice that your instructor was going to ask you to demonstrate a forced approach then either one of two outcomes would have ensued:

• You would have remained similarly oblivious to your surroundings, and would have learned the same lesson, without the surprise
• Or you would have remember the airfield, and you never thereafter would have missed an airfield en-route for that purpose.

So, I'm still not seeing the importance of surprise here.

• (cool, list tags, never used these before here)

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

If I had 30 seconds notice, or more, I might have spotted the airport, in which case it would have been a good simulated forced landing exercise (whether I decided to go for the airport or not). I probably would have been convinced I would have seen that airport either way. Therefore strenghtening my belief that I was doing great!

The only way to know how you would react if you get surprised, is by getting surprised.

Did you get any surprises during your initial training/ratings? Do you remember them more vividly than other 'normal' lessons?

[photofly]

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.

Why thirty seconds? Because that's about the amount of time between the student hearing you ask the Tower controller for a simulated forced approach, and commencing the exercise. Remember, we got here because one of the supposed reasons for using a stupid code was so the student wouldn't cotton on to what he or she was about to be asked to do - it was supposed to be a "surprise". I said there's no benefit in "surprising" the student, so therefore there's no need for a silly code word.

Did you get any surprises during your initial training/ratings? Do you remember them more vividly than other 'normal' lessons?

No. But I do remember an instructor playing silly buggers by asking for a forced approach when I was over a difficult-to-spot grass airfield, and me wasting time trying to find it (it was exactly under the nose at the time) instead of doing what I should have done and getting on with picking a sensible field and using that.

[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.