Reason #528 to leave your flight school immediately

[Colonel Sanders]

even the clouds divert around

Weirdly, true. Often it is raining north in the Gatineau
hills and Ottawa, and I can see the CB's to the south
over the St Lawrence, and it's nice here.

There are two grass strips: 1400 feet north/south
and 1000 feet east/west. I mow them myself.

I have spent far too many years of my life in
Toronto and other unsavoury places. Never
again.

[xysn]

I was put on a sim then airplane syllabus. I was told it would help speed up the training so I went along without knowing much better.

I'm not sure that the sim really cut down on my time to complete although I did not fly as frequently as I should have. I'm told that students finished sooner with the sim + airplane syllabus. Whether they finished cheaper I'm not sure. Maybe it does work for students who train 3 or 4 times a week. The fact the sim didn't at all resemble the cockpit of my eventual trainer didn't help me.

Personally I would have preferred to minimize the sim time, and would also recommend that students avoid the sim + airplane syllabus.

The sim was useful for instrument time, demonstrating what happens if you pull up instead of adding power when low on final, and how fast a mid-air could occur. I'm sure specific uses of the sim can help, you have to know when to use it. I found Microsoft Flight Simulator at home adequate for practising the procedures of forced approach, though obviously judging the glide and landing spot was not possible. Still having the procedures down enabled me to focus on the actual landing in the cockpit.

Strangely enough I think the piece of technology that would have improved my training the most would be a basic cockpit video and voice recorder - something I could go back to review after lessons rather than relying on my own written notes and the PTR.

[Shiny Side Up]

Light plane Simulator used to mean simulation of light airplane instruments. Huge advances in technology now means that we are starting to see visual displays that are good enough to fly the simulated aircraft without reference to the instruments.

This has been possible for a long time, if you've had enough money to spend, either way though it still has a long way to go before it will approach the type of immersion necessary to provide what is needed where we're talking about.

Obviously PPL training needs to start in the airplane and the airplane is where you need to teach the presolo exercises but I think that saying there is no place for a full visual simulator like the Redbird or Alsim in PPL training at all is being a ludite.

I'll agree where there's places where it can be useful and especially useful when one advances past the ab initio learning stage, but that's not my complain and why I started this thread. The bolded portion is the operative bit where you must admit that we're not that far apart - but that's where this problem is particularly acute. We're starting to see a large push to put these machines extensively into the ab initio stage where it doesn't belong. In my experience it has done nothing but harm to those who have been subjected to it.

Because some schools are grievously mis-using the technology doesn't in my opinion make it useless.

You are right there. My point to the student/customers out there would be that they should be very wary of any school that touts extensive simulator time, epecially if it is mandatory within their syllabus. They need to know that its not what everyone is doing, and ther are other options.

I also think that if you have not experienced one of these new sims then you really can't usefully contribute to this discussion.

The point holds true though since sims have been introduced. I've seen old steam sims misused as well as new redbirds an their ilk. And for what its worth, I have spent a fair amount of time both using and evaluating such pieces of equipment (right now we're debating the purchase of a red bird). That's the main problem here, old or new, instructors just don't know how to use a sim (something I try to rectify with my new class fours, but I digress) play to its strengths when they can use it to advantage.

This here is really telling though:

I'm not sure that the sim really cut down on my time to complete although I did not fly as frequently as I should have. I'm told that students finished sooner with the sim + airplane syllabus. Whether they finished cheaper I'm not sure. Maybe it does work for students who train 3 or 4 times a week.

Statistically, every PTR I've come across where someone has been put though such a sim heavy program has had more hours on average than one that hasn't - and that's counting only the airplane hours. Unless the sim was given for free, I can't see how it would be cost beneficial to a student/customer to sign onto such a program.

One part of it that really stinks is one has gotten the idea that the "sim lessons" have become the surrogate for a proper PGI on a lesson. I would suspect that there is little ground brief with the belief that "seeing it in the sim" is going to adequately prepare them for the plane. Maybe it helps if the instructors can't deliver good PGIs.

[fixnfly]

The way I understand it --- a lot of instructors are time building for their airline dreams. Why would an instructor want to put their student in a simulator?? Does that not take away their PIC time?

Funny you say that. Kind of an off topic story but a couple months ago I have a buddy that was doing his PPL at CYBW. Ive heard instructors love PPL students because of all the PIC time. Anyways he was doing his PPL and he ended up with about 80 hours dual time with this freshly minted instructor. He was getting anxious and wanted to do his flight test. The Flight instructor kept telling him; You will just need a couple more flights and you'll be ready. Anyways after 90 hours dual time I told him to go find another instructor that wasn't milking him for PIC time. But his flight instructor kept telling him only a couple more flights and he would be signed off to do the flight test so he persisted. Finally after 120 hours dual time and 10 PIC, he was finally convinced to leave the flight instructor and flight school altogether. He got signed off at another flight school to do his test after only 2 flights and passed. He had less than 5 hours Sim.

This occurrence kind of reminded me of the typical commercial operation dangling the FO carrot in front of a new CPL rampie. "Just wait a little longer" Kind of sad to see it happen to new student who has no experience with this industry. I kind of wonder if it is becoming more common?

[Colonel Sanders]

after 120 hours dual time

The problem is that there is absolutely no risk
to an unscrupulous instructor that wants to do
this.

Nothing bad happens to a milking instructor. The
FTU is in heaven. TC couldn't care less. And the
poor student is gone now, so he can't do anything
about it, either.

Many years ago, when I was a class 2 instructor,
I had a student that was being milked by another
school, come to me and ask me if I would recommend
her for her PPL flight test. I said sure, get your
PTR and your logbook.

We did one long ground session and one long flight,
and we covered everything on the flight test. What
a grind. I write out the recommend and call the DFTE.

DFTE does the test, she passes. DFTE informs me
that because I didn't fly at least 5 hours with her, it
doesn't count as a recommend for me.

Hold on a goddamned minute. I was a class 2, so I
didn't really care, but I asked the slimy DFTE if she
failed, would it reflect negatively on my instructor
flight test record? Of course, the slimy DFTE told
me. Well then, it counts as a pass for my instructor
flight test record, doesn't it?

I figured out later that the slimy DFTE was trying
to poach the recommend for her milking instructor
pal at the other FTU!

There is no honour in flight training, let me tell you.

Irony: I am sure you know of the slimy DFTE,
whom is feted nationally, receiving awards in COPA.
Doesn't stop her from being a scumbag, though.

[xysn]

One part of it that really stinks is one has gotten the idea that the "sim lessons" have become the surrogate for a proper PGI on a lesson. I would suspect that there is little ground brief with the belief that "seeing it in the sim" is going to adequately prepare them for the plane. Maybe it helps if the instructors can't deliver good PGIs.

For what its worth I was given PGIs (And decent ones) prior to each sim and "real flight" session

[AirFrame]

There is NO good reason for a PPL student to spend any time in a simulator as official instructional time. It won't save any significant amount of cost on the training, and doesn't add anything to a good flight with a good instructor.

During my PPL I visited the sim for 15 minutes, when're weather changed faster than anticipated. The 15 minutes was just for fun, as I'd never even seen the inside of a simulator before. I found it boring, and a poor substitute for flying an actual airplane.

[Colonel Sanders]

There is NO good reason for a PPL student to spend any time in a simulator

Actually, using a sim for part of the 5 hrs hood time
for a PPL is fine w/me. If nothing else, it will teach
him to despise sims, which is a valuable lesson that
every pilot should learn.

[dogger7]

There is NO good reason for a PPL student to spend any time in a simulator

Actually, using a sim for part of the 5 hrs hood time
for a PPL is fine w/me. If nothing else, it will teach
him to despise sims, which is a valuable lesson that
every pilot should learn.

Agreed. Exactly what happened to me.

[costermonger]

Thread drift -- but why do schools refuse to train even advanced students in less than perfect wx? I was at an airport today, where a school I am familiar with had "no flying" posted -- no dual or solo, on a perfectly good if sporty vfr day.

Conditions were light rain, 3000 ft ceiling, some LL turbulance, and crosswinds gusting to 20- 24 about 20 - 40 degrees off the runway. No convection, no chance of icing. No solo, I get. But no dual, or advanced IFR dual? It was a great potential IFR training environment, wasted. IMC, With bumps, but safe. More dumbing down of training.

I flew it, wasn't that bad. Anyone halfway competent would have zero issues.

Enlighten me please.

a) There was little activity due to the crosswind that was forecast and observed to be exceeding the demonstrated maximums of almost all the aircraft in the fleet. You can debate the merits of this if you'd like, but we have to set a limit somewhere, and it's very difficult to explain why that limit is higher than what the manufacturer has promised the aircraft is capable of.

b) The determining factor for IFR training in IMC is twofold: weather has to be appropriate and the student has to be at an appropriate stage of their training for actual IMC work. The flight status you saw doesn't have anything to do with IFR. If it's legal, safe and meets the training objectives, I go flying. Now, I don't have an unlimited supply of students who are at the stage of the training where I want to fly in conditions like we had here on the day you're referring to. In practice, I had three, one of whom was available. We flew, it was lovely. I think you had left by then, however.

c) Weather decisions in a flight training environment are driven by student activity, not regulatory minimums applied to the instructor's license. Or at least they damn well should be. *My* ability to fly in any given condition is completely irrelevant if the student sitting beside me (paying hundreds of dollars an hour for the privilege) isn't gaining something from the experience. In the context of what I spend most of my time teaching, if I have to fly the plane, the student wasn't ready to fly in those conditions. I know my name appears in your logbook, and while I can't remember every single thing we ever did, I am absolutely sure that the cumulative amount of time I spent with my hands on the controls can be counted in seconds, not minutes. That's my goal.

--

On the subject at hand: I think simulators are a fantastic tool. I have yet to meet one I didn't thoroughly hate flying, but as procedures trainers they can't be beat. The early portion of flight training isn't procedural though. The skills, relationships and hand-eye coordination you're building during everything up to the instrument portion of the PPL shouldn't have anything to do with a simulator.

[lownslow]

...I feel that ab initio
should be taught ideally in a tube & fabric tailwheel
aircraft with no electrics on a grass runway at a
quiet uncontrolled airport.

No radio. No gyros. Just an airspeed, altimeter,
tach and oil pressure. Portable intercom. No
starter. Hand-bomb. Learn magneto safety
and priming.

Student looks outside to orient the aircraft and
for other traffic. Learning factor of Primacy.

Student learns to use a stick and rudder pedals
from hour zero. Learning factor of Primacy.

I couldn't agree more with this, in fact I came to the same conclusion myself back when I was instructing. Sadly, I didn't own the place so I had to use what we had. Still, I brought my A-game and didn't let my students get away with being sloppy. In the end there were only so may things I could do the right way (IMO) while still conforming to the school's way of life and I learned just how little influence I had on any sort of change, so it was time for me to go.

Somewhere in the back of my mind I harbour this fantasy of some day having a small fleet of Champs on some quiet uncontrolled airfield just to do sub-CPL training. That's way off topic for now though, and even farther off reality.

LnS.

[Colonel Sanders]

There was little activity due to the crosswind that was forecast and observed to be exceeding the demonstrated maximums of almost all the aircraft in the fleet. You can debate the merits of this if you'd like, but we have to set a limit somewhere, and it's very difficult to explain why that limit is higher than what the manufacturer has promised the aircraft is capable of

Right there is why you shouldn't shut down an
engine on a 4 cyl twin during multi training. They
simply don't have the aircraft handling skills, if
they can't even land a single in a crosswind.

I do admire the spin in the above quote. Demonstrated
crosswind is NOT an aircraft limitation! I have
landed pretty well every type I've ever flown in
crosswinds exceeding those demonstrated during
certification.

[Shiny Side Up]

Actually, using a sim for part of the 5 hrs hood time
for a PPL is fine w/me. If nothing else, it will teach
him to despise sims, which is a valuable lesson that
every pilot should learn.

Despise would be heavier than I would say, but lets say to be wary of them, more in particular how your instructor uses it. It should be said too that some people just plain cannot use a sim - it has something to do with their ability to suspend their disbelief. It also depends on their familiarity with computers. My father for instance can't make the connection between the little arrow on the screen and the mouse in his hand, its a mental block of some sort. I digress.

There are some very useful things to se in a sim, that it really shines at. All are really optional for PPLs, but useful for them to see. The first is a demo of the 178 second rule. Even with people who have had some prior use of say MS flight sim, or similar, will get into a spiral and crash if you introduce any problems while instrument flying. For nine out of ten students this is the case, you can start your clock and plot out standard deviation. Note that it takes maybe a whopping .1 or .2 of sim to get this point across: Your five hours of instrument practice on your license ain't going to be enough for you to challenge the weather.

The other very valuable thing to do is play around with failure modes of the instruments and other equipment. Even our relatively primitive current sim does this well, there's two parts to the lesson. 1) is you can really do some work on real time problem solving, hit home on some of those systems knowledge. Example: your airspeed looks really off, what might be the problem? 2) It hits home the number one priority when dealing with said problems: fly the aircraft. Note that this is related to the former 178 second problem too. the nice part being that failures can be instigated by the instructor without doing as much imagination time as in the airplane. I know our sim does a really nice failure of the Artificial Horizon that catches people all the time as it does its lazy roll over on its back.

[photofly]

I heard the other day only 2% of driving school applicants want to learn a manual gearbox. And why should they bother if they're never in their lives going to drive one?

How many people who pat themselves on the back for being able to drive a manual gearbox vehicle can do it without the nanny-training-wheel crutch of a synchromesh gearbox?

I realize I know nothing, but what can't you teach in a 150 with the airspeed covered that you can teach in a champ, other than landing a tail wheel? And since you can't anywhere hire a tail wheel aircraft for solo rental, why should anyone care?

Serious question.

[Colonel Sanders]

fantasy of some day having a small fleet of Champs on some quiet uncontrolled airfield

This guy has been doing it for quite some time:

http://www.andoverflight.com/news/11983 ... -2007.html
http://www.andoverflight.com/information_tailwheel.html

[Colonel Sanders]

why should they bother if they're never in their lives going to drive one?

As Richard Bach once observed:

"Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they are yours"

How many people who pat themselves on the back for being able to drive a manual gearbox vehicle can do it without the nanny-training-wheel crutch of a synchromesh gearbox?

Agreed - no one even knows what a "Porsche" ring is any
more. During the winter I drive a large snow plow truck to
clear the runway, and it has a very nasty gearbox which
humbles many people that think they know how to drive
a manual

what can't you teach in a 150 with the airspeed covered that you can teach in a champ

That's a really good argument, at first. However, implicit
in that theory is that you have a superb, unforgiving instructor
that does not let the pilot make any mistakes in the 150.

Unfortunately this differs from reality, when the instructor
has 250TT and spends the flight texting.

The advantage of the tailwheel aircraft is that it is consistently
demanding of the student in terms of rudder control. Grass
makes it a bit more forgiving, but still, rudder use is optional
on a nosewheel aircraft, which is why so many low-time pilots
have problems with crosswind landings.

They don't have a problem with crosswinds - they have a
fundamental problem with a lack of rudder skill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US9je8STwjo


If someone spends the time to develop that stick
and rudder skill on a tailwheel aircraft, they will find
crosswind landings effortless in a nosewheel aircraft,
which to me has great value.

If you want, think of a taildragger as a "hair shirt":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilice

Remember what Nietzsche said.

[costermonger]

Right there is why you shouldn't shut down an
engine on a 4 cyl twin during multi training. They
simply don't have the aircraft handling skills, if
they can't even land a single in a crosswind.

I do admire the spin in the above quote. Demonstrated
crosswind is NOT an aircraft limitation! I have
landed pretty well every type I've ever flown in
crosswinds exceeding those demonstrated during
certification.

It's not even really about individual ability, but rather building rules to apply to the entire pool of pilots fly your planes. Say 95% of the people who fly them can handle 150% of the max demonstrated crosswind, but one of the 5% who can't goes for a trip through the weeds or smacks a prop off an edge light, you're in a tough position having allowed that plane to go flying in conditions where there's nothing on paper to clearly indicate that the aircraft was within the limits of it's capability. Yes, the PIC bears ultimate responsibility for what happens in an aircraft, but if you bend a rental/training airplane because you couldn't handle the x-wind, the occurrence report would still land on somebody's desk with numerous interested parties asking "why was this allowed to happen?"

Personally, I know there are a few types in my logbook that I haven't landed beyond the demonstrated crosswind, largely because there are a few types that I've only got a handful of hours in.

[Colonel Sanders]

building rules to apply to the entire pool of pilots fly your planes

STL and ragbagflyer, are you reading this?

Idea: when the wind is howling, instead of running
away from it, take your instructors and fresh CPL's
up and teach them to handle it.

A while ago, I checked a guy out on a PT-19. Hadn't
flown it in probably a year. Eric usually flies it.

Someone ran up to me and asked me if I was really
going flying - windsock was straight out across the
runway. I honestly hadn't noticed. I replied,

"I don't care what the wind does".

I have mentioned before that in Central America, I
have flown airshows where we did head-on takeoffs
and landings in two Pitts S-2C's. Guess who took
the 20 knot tailwind for the takeoff and landing?



My point is that the AIRCRAFT is rarely, if ever, the
limiting factor. The PILOT is the limiting factor.

If that was true for me, I would be grossly embarrassed
and I would do something about it. And, I did.

I am just amazed at how many people are quite
content to be incompetent in the cockpit.

[Shiny Side Up]

In this case you guys are talking about doing two different things. Its one thing training pilots and stepping up the level of what they can take on, its another to have rules that govern your rental policies. Depends on what's more important. I would also put the caveat on training people with crosswinds, is that its an incremental process rather than a sink or swim process. So in that regards the wind does matter, but it is tough to gauge what one might think another pilot is up to. I remember one guy I made land the plane when it was around 12G18 across the runway. The whole way down he kept chanting that he wasn't going to be able to do it, which was so much of a shock when he did, he did a lot of swearing at me and how I had risked his life to such a dangerous level. I guess he missed the point, but either way I was mistaken at the time to think it was going to help him and in retrospect we probably should have just stuck with his own self declared limitation. Would have been less trouble for me.

[rob-air]

My point is that the AIRCRAFT is rarely, if ever, the
limiting factor. The PILOT is the limiting factor.

True, but one could possibly get in trouble if their skills exceeds the aircraft 's aerodynamic capabilities. Kind of a VMC for a twin, what if you run out of rudder on a x-wind landing?
come in slick and faster? is the RWY long enough?
go some where else?

I heard stories of pilots landing on the taxiway because of that, I would imagine that it could get you a cador at the very least and a closed door discussion with the boss.

Stay safe, know your limits and don't play too close to them.

And my opinion on sim time......Those Elite sims are just garbage I cant believe they are still approved for training in this day and age. Man, it runs on mac os.8.
Imagine what a serious X-plane 10 player thinks of that. An hour or two could be beneficial for a ppl but....
That red bird, never sat in one but the hourly cost is close to the rental price of a c-150(2). On weather days tell you students (PPL) to hit the books or practice procedures on the ground (AC not running duh!) sitting in the plane they are actually flying in, its free and very useful in my opinion.

On the other hand, I don't own a flight school and don't see students as walking wallets.

[Colonel Sanders]

if their skills exceeds the aircraft 's aerodynamic capabilities

Not a problem for 99.999% of the pilots in Canada.

Are you really in the 0.001% ?

Reminds me of pilots worried about VFR night
flying. Too funny. Pilots are worried about
engine failure, but at least 99% of night VFR
accidents are pilot error. The airplane has no
eyeballs, and cannot tell when it is dark.

That's pretty poor optimization, where you are
trying to improve the 1%. Why not try to
improve the 99%? Easier target.

[rob-air]

if their skills exceeds the aircraft 's aerodynamic capabilities

Not a problem for 99.999% of the pilots in Canada.

Are you really in the 0.001% ?

Dont know, not too exited about finding out.

For each 1% we fix out of the 99.999999% it increases the odds of a engine failure accident at night by that same 1 %, Scary!

[Rookie50]

In this case you guys are talking about doing two different things. Its one thing training pilots and stepping up the level of what they can take on, its another to have rules that govern your rental policies. Depends on what's more important. I would also put the caveat on training people with crosswinds, is that its an incremental process rather than a sink or swim process. So in that regards the wind does matter, but it is tough to gauge what one might think another pilot is up to. I remember one guy I made land the plane when it was around 12G18 across the runway. The whole way down he kept chanting that he wasn't going to be able to do it, which was so much of a shock when he did, he did a lot of swearing at me and how I had risked his life to such a dangerous level. I guess he missed the point, but either way I was mistaken at the time to think it was going to help him and in retrospect we probably should have just stuck with his own self declared limitation. Would have been less trouble for me.

Note 2 things; I was only talking about dual sessions, not rentals for the conditions in question.....JMO only of course.

[Beefitarian]

I am a luddite. Feel free to make fun of me
because I don't understand all this hi-tech stuff.

Ah cysh.....idyllic flying bliss. Likely even the clouds divert around. Wish they were all like that, instead of the frantic activity of a Brampton. There are lots of nice uncontrolled fields though -- if you're not in a city that is.

I left the funniest part of that CS quote. Good one.

Anyway Rookie. You're in a airplane, fly to one of those nice fields.

[Beefitarian]

The only remnant of his previous shitty training was despite much sarcastic ridicule on my part, he still sometimes forgot and stuck on that staple of Alberta Flight training "Conflicting traffic please advise" in radio calls

You don't understand the peer pressure. Everyone else is saying it. You feel like you better or you'll be shunned.