Reviewing with non-instructor pilot

[YYZSaabGuy]

If you heard it, you can't un-heard it.

Tangent topic is the nature of how people learn things. I think of memory as something that's like writing on paper with pen. Its there forever. No matter how much you try to over write it, its still there at the bottom. Even if one makes an effort to erase it, there will still be traces of it at the bottom. When pushed, people always revert to that bottom and base level.

Good discussion, Shiny, and while I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you write, I think we differ on this particular point. A major objective of flight training is to build muscle memory that will kick in as needed because, to use your description, CPU capacity has been reached. It's not like a student has to get a maneuver right the very first try out of the gate or he's forever doomed: first errors, if made, are almost always offset and trained away through repeated training, otherwise nobody would progress. Flight training is about learning not to revert to that bottom and base level, no?

[5x5]

It's too bad there seem to be a lot of experienced pilots who view flight training with such disdain. As an example, stating a view where getting a PPL is simply a paper exercise or that flying experiences you get after receiving a PPL should be acceptable months before you do demonstrates either that disdain, or (hopefully) simply a hazy memory of what it was like way back when they got their licence. I think they forget how relatively basic their skills and decision making capabilities were when they got their PPL.

Working with students on a regular basis keeps reminding you that people have to learn on a building block basis. They don't develop skills overnight nor do they learn procedures simply by watching someone else. To go on flights with a pilot who is not tied in to their training progress for the purpose of having said pilot show or teach them procedures, mostly works against the efforts of the instructor.

[Big Pistons Forever]

. Flight training is about learning not to revert to that bottom and base level, no?

No

The core of good flight training is about ensuring that the " the bottom and base level " for everything a student will encounter when they get their PPL, is robust enough that the student has the knowledge and judgement to recognize when they are nearing the limit of their competency and then have the skills to deal with the situation. You have to learn to walk before you can run....

[YYZSaabGuy]

. Flight training is about learning not to revert to that bottom and base level, no?

No

The core of good flight training is about ensuring that the " the bottom and base level " for everything a student will encounter when they get their PPL, is robust enough that the student has the knowledge and judgement to recognize when they are nearing the limit of their competency and then have the skills to deal with the situation. You have to learn to walk before you can run....

BPF, respectfully, I think that's a distinction without a difference: I really don't see any meaningful variance in what we're saying.
Flight training is about building high-quality muscle memory/skills that complement knowledge and judgment to deal with in-flight situations, so that the "bottom and base level" of expertise (knowledge, judgment, and skills) is sufficient to keep a pilot safe in pretty much any situation he/she faces.
Either we are really not arguing, or I am completely missing your point.

[Shiny Side Up]

It's not like a student has to get a maneuver right the very first try out of the gate or he's forever doomed: first errors, if made, are almost always offset and trained away through repeated training, otherwise nobody would progress. Flight training is about learning not to revert to that bottom and base level, no?

Its not the student that has to get the maneuver right the first time, its the instructor. The first time a student encounters something new is going to be their base level. Human beings, since we were swinging in trees, take in a lot by watching other humans do things, hence the old phrase. Indeed if first impressions are not good they my be forever doomed. I would speculate that for every student that has issue somewhere in any aspect of their training its because some where before hand they have memory to draw upon. From my limited knowledge of how brains work, your brain can't erase pathways to make new ones, it simply routes around them. Consequently it takes a lot of effort to make a brain re-route itself if there's is already an established path way, as opposed to making a new pathway in uncharted grey matter.

Again side topic, the above, but it would bear out upon observation in my short time of experience in the world.

As to the flying with other pilots at this stage in their training, its important to remember that students will absorb tremendous amounts of information in such encounters, flight training is designed to parcel that out and control it so that it build upon itself, whether a more "uncontrolled" learning environment may have way more unintended consequences. Some not immediately obvious. Hopefully training and education help one's mind defend against them later on. I'm sure any parent can attest to this when one discovers all sorts of things your children might learn.

[photofly]

I'm so not buying into the "precious delicate virgin minds need protecting" theory. If it were true, nobody would be able to learn to drive a car, which is much more complicated than flying an airplane (*)

I do think some of people's reservations to the ideas here are about "keeping control" - and not in a good way.

(*) I await, with great amusement, the inevitable essays about why learning to pilot an airplane is entirely different to learning to drive.

[mike123]

(*) I await, with great amusement, the inevitable essays about why learning to pilot an airplane is entirely different to learning to drive.

If a car engine quits, you can park on the side of the road.
If the weather becomes too uncomfortable, you can park on the side of the road.

Having said that, I don't believe that instructors are so much superior to non-instructors. One of my student's learned a lot of good stuff flying with his airline pilot father. Another student of mine all of sudden begun saying ACTPA on the radio because he heard another instructor saying that and thought that sounded cool and professional.

[photofly]

If the weather becomes too uncomfortable, you can park on the side of the road.

I'm sure your comment will be a great consolation to anyone who was involved in this:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/25 ... s-reports/

Or this:
http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/02/27/dea ... t-highways

Or this:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/woman-killed-in-4 ... y-1.598485

Driving can be just as deadly and unforgiving as flying.

[7ECA]

Not to mention the whole, multi-thousand pound steel box, travelling at high speeds, just feet away from another, multi-thousand pound steel box, thing. At least with planes, they tend to stay away from each other, except on the ground (ok occasionally they get to close in the air, but there are a hell of a lot less mid-airs than there are fender benders).

[5x5]

Well photofly, I'm so not buying into the belief you have legitimate concerns with this topic. The troll in you has certainly surfaced. To use examples of situations where people driving cars, could have but didn't, elect to pull over in bad weather simply doesn't negate the fact you can't do so in an airplane. Also, talking about learning to drive a car being easier than flying an airplane ignores the fact that getting a driver's licence is so much easier due to significantly less training required. And the hugely high number of accidents simply is evidence of poor training, not difficulty of operation.

[photofly]

Are delicate virgin minds damaged by travelling in a car before, or during the process of learning to drive?

Maybe the reason I can't play the piano is because I once watched Eric Morcombe doing it badly on TV:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7GeKLE0x3s

[Shiny Side Up]

Are delicate virgin minds damaged by travelling in a car before, or during the process of learning to drive?

Probably. Poor driving habits otherwise seem to be genetic. There's something to us becoming our parents, mostly because we hang out with them the most when our minds are the most able to be influenced. In all likelihood, you probably drive like your father PF.

[trey kule]

Are delicate virgin minds damaged by travelling in a car before, or during the process of learning to drive?

I can not say for certain about their minds, but the some of the rest of them definitely get damaged travelling in cars.

No one has really demonstrated any sound unbiased reasons that I could see, to support either argument.
Personally, I can see both benefits, and the downsides. It is maybe a case by case thing rather than a poster generating idea.

On a very personal basis, I am very very careful about any permitted or licensed pilot climbing into the cockpit with me. Have had some bad experiences in the past with unnoticed flying fingers trying to be helpful, and calls from companies wanting to confirm Herbie's time on type. I guess Herbie never thought it might raise a few eyebrows if he logged high performance, multi engine , pressurized time
in the flight levels before he had his multi engine, or IF rating. True story!

[PilotDAR]

I spent the early part of my PPL career being a poster child for why non instructor flight instruction is probably not a great idea. Between age 14 and 16 I flew a lot of "co pilot" with a very kind and giving fellow, who'd recently earned his PPL and night endorsement, and bought a 150. I probably had a hundred hours of the many hundreds of hours we flew together, including Florida twice, and Texas. I an very grateful for the experience, though in hind sight, some of it was really a bad idea. The only two really fine elements of it were that I did the flying on a 150, so moving into training on one for training was instant, and his being a fresh PPL himself, and taking me to the instructor who had instructed him, there was a kind of weird consistency to my learning. There were certainly things to be un learned and re learned, and some casual practices to be disciplined out.

What probably saved me from eternal damnation as a PPL was renting for a while in a very disciplined environment, and then flying more advanced aircraft with more advanced instructors and ATPL's who drilled into me "professional" habits. Those stuck with me, more so than PPL instruction, as I had super confidence in who was mentoring me.

But what also stuck for a long time was the "do anything with a 150" mentality. So yes, for decades, I was one of those pilots who would take a 150 just about anywhere, 'cause I'd learned, right or wrong, that it could be done. It took much longer for me to learn that "could be done" certainly did not equate to "should be done". I'd fly a route right seat IFR in the Aztec, and then repeat it night VFR in my 150, 'cause I knew it. It worked, but I had no idea how much of it was luck, until the evolving accumulation of accidents like the recent one in Algonquin park got me thinking about mortality. Eventually my risk to benefit nerves, and simple "do I have that muck luck left?" senses began to kick in, and I cut way back on that kind of behaviour.

So non instructor mentoring can be a good thing, if the recipient is very alert to ingraining the good, while dispensing the well meaning, but not good elements they experience.

[photofly]

In all likelihood, you probably drive like your father PF.

My father learned to drive on a Ford Model T (yes, seriously) and bought his driving licence at the Post Office in England before the driving test was introduced there in 1934. I should be lucky to drive half as well as he did.

One benefit to flying with other pilots: it's fun. I agree there's no real evidence here that it either helps or hinders learning (I could also give personal anecdotes about some students I know - of a very positive nature) but like everything here they're just anecdotes. I do think if people want to go fly more and they have the opportunity, the cause of GA isn't served by trying to stop them.

[PilotDAR]

I do think if people want to go fly more and they have the opportunity, the cause of GA isn't served by trying to stop them.

I totally agree.

[5x5]

Going for flights for fun as a passenger certainly does not hurt, and in fact, benefits GA. However, if you bother to read the original post, that is not what was asked.

I am looking for some feedback regarding a student pilot receiving what amounts to instruction from a pilot who has never held on instructor rating. The student is receiving dual instruction from a certified flight instructor however is going up for review flights with a non-instructor pilot in an effort to save money. My inclination on this is that it is not a good idea for several reasons, such as the lack of supervision, the transfer of bad habits/information and the non-instructor pilot has never had any formal training in giving dual instruction. I would also like to hear if anyone believes this may have some merit to it.

[photofly]

That's true, of course: the devil is always in the detail. Who is the instructor? Who is the student? Who is the other pilot? What exactly does a "review" mean? In which seat is the student sitting?

[Shiny Side Up]

My father learned to drive on a Ford Model T (yes, seriously) and bought his driving licence at the Post Office in England before the driving test was introduced there in 1934. I should be lucky to drive half as well as he did.

First I would point out that who influences one isn't always a bad thing. Second, there has something to do with Boyd's law of inequalities in the second part. As I said before, how people learn, is a tangental part of this discussion, but something I find extrordinarily intresting. The nature vs nurture, and all the related topics.

One benefit to flying with other pilots: it's fun. I agree there's no real evidence here that it either helps or hinders learning (I could also give personal anecdotes about some students I know - of a very positive nature) but like everything here they're just anecdotes. I do think if people want to go fly more and they have the opportunity, the cause of GA isn't served by trying to stop them.

Fully agree. I don't think people should be stopped or hindered from doing such things, but rather that the chief goal be fun and enjoyment with the realisation that learning might be secondary, and not necessarily instantly beneficial to the neophyte. My issue is when frequently it is approached that way. Too many people I find want to count being a passenger as real experience, to the point of logging time and/or counting it as real training against the standards side of things. I've had a fair amount of students frustrated when they feel that it hasn't helped them as much as they thought, or in some cases were told. Experience wise, there's no substitute for hands on stick time.

incidentally, I've run into people who've thought that cabin crew could some how benefit from logging their time, and one person who was under the impression that any time spent in an airplane was loggable, even crammed into coach on your way to Winnipeg.

On another tangent, learning to drive is only different for people than learning to fly from the part that most people learn to drive a lot earlier and are exposed to it (their fragile minds and all) from a lot earlier age than they are flying. It probably can't be stressed enough that if you want to be good at anything, a key is to start young.

[PilotDAR]

It probably can't be stressed enough that if you want to be good at anything, a key is to start young.

Absolutely! I was lucky enough to fly years before I drove. Two things about learning later in life appear to me to be that a) your head is thicker when you're older, so the learning you need does not flow in as well, and b) people who learn to fly later in life have otherwise succeeded (so as to be able to afford it). Those successful people then assume that they can succeed in flying, but it might be the same.

But back on track, if student pilots can go for a flight as a passenger, with a non instructor pilot, and maybe learn something, or maybe just go for a nice flight, great. But if that non instructor pilot is taking on a training role for a non licensed student pilot, I think that could be trouble if not handled with great coordination with the instructor. And, of course, it's not "loggable" time for the student pilot, 'cause it's not dual with an instructor, and it's not solo.

[Big Pistons Forever]

There's something to us becoming our parents, mostly because we hang out with them the most when our minds are the most able to be influenced. In all likelihood, you probably drive like your father PF.

One thing is for sure. The older I got, the smarter my father became

[KnownIce]

I've always enjoyed taking up new pilots -- far too many people start a PPL and then quit for whatever reason. Opening their eyes to the world post PPL where they could split flights, fly a new type, land on some grass strip that in no way resembles the airports they fly out of etc, I'd like to think might just help someone stay in the game.

But I have usually restricted this to pre-solo students. Just as well have them learn consistently from one person once things get more serious. Once they are licensed they can learn how to lean per the engine manufacturer / whatever else that gets argued here all the time . Besides, if they are taking their PPL seriously, the time between solo and licence should only be a couple months; if they haven't went for a ride with me yet they can wait until they're done as a reward.

[KnownIce]

incidentally, I've run into people who've thought that cabin crew could some how benefit from logging their time, and one person who was under the impression that any time spent in an airplane was loggable, even crammed into coach on your way to Winnipeg.

I'm sure I've seen a log book somewhere - maybe my grandpa's original air force one? - that had a column for passenger, so they aren't totally fibbin' you!

[trey kule]

5x5.....
What are you trying to say? We should limit ourselves to relevant answers to the question?

The OP was asking for a generalization to a specific instance.. Impossible to answer intelligently without knowing the details of all involved. So off we all go on a tangent.

Personally I found some of the answers quite interesting even if they did not address the question asked.

I would guess that if there is a problem arising between the student and thier instructor as a result of something the non instructor taught them, it would have to be addressed. But again, a very specific, and maybe limited issue.