Direct Crosswind

[Colonel Sanders]

I would agree with you that most flight
instruction in Canada is really pretty crappy.

Despite it, people sometimes slowly teach
themselves to fly.

Funny that people just don't care.

[dirtdr]

Cs... slow flight was taught verh well... my favourite excersize actually...

What was not taught.... or not learned by me until now... is that correlation between adverse yaw in the air during slow flight and adverse yaw below flying speed on takeoff and landing roll

[Colonel Sanders]

<facepalm>

www.pittspecials.com/articles/AdverseYaw.htm

Most flight instruction in Canada is not only
very expensive, but very crappy.

[Shiny Side Up]

Cs... slow flight was taught verh well... my favourite excersize actually...

What was not taught.... or not learned by me until now... is that correlation between adverse yaw in the air during slow flight and adverse yaw below flying speed on takeoff and landing roll

Umm, then it wasn't taught very well. Missed the most important bit of the exercise...

[Colonel Sanders]

I would hope that the lessons of slow flight
would be applied to takeoffs and landings,
when the aircraft is well, flying slowly?

People often say they have problems with
crosswind takeoffs and landings. They
actually have a problem with slow flight.

Few people can control an aircraft precisely
during slow flight and the stall. This is
not seen as a useful skill.

Look at the control that this guy has of
his airplane, at slow speed (rolling harrier
second half of video):

http://www.bulldogairshows.com/video/19 ... arrier.mpg

[Shiny Side Up]

I hate to say it Colonel, but part of that problem is stuff like this:

turn takes about 30 minutes to get to PPL standard.

Ignoring the fact that people require repeated practice to stay good at something. The student will frequently do the exercise once, then the instructor is moving them on. Student and instructor are happy, getting closer to doing landings. There's no connection made because there's no time spent. Its seen merely as a separate exercise that just needs to be gotten through, and for the most part, solely to pass the test. Everything you learn in flying is connected and relevant to each other part. There's no parts "less" important.

[Colonel Sanders]

I think you're quoting PF about the hood
task on the PPL flight test. I would agree
with him that most people don't take 5
hours to learn to do a level rate one turn.

Remember that the 5 hours for PPL was
tacked on in the 1980's after TC put out
a really crappy forecast and a priest dug
a hole in the ice because of whiteout.

I have a hard time taking knee-jerk
legislation like that seriously. Just a bunch
of long-retired fat politicians and bureaucrats
covering their @sses on their way to the
Senate to work as party bagmen and steal
from the taxpayer with fraudulent expense
claims. Or so the RCMP says, anyways.

[Shiny Side Up]

Yes, but the point is that I find that instructors get bored with exercises and don't spend time on them. Learning factor of exercise anyone? While 5 hours may be too much, I feel they definitely need more practice than thirty minutes. If I do thirty minutes with a student he might be awesome at it really quickly, but rarely if one revisits an exercise are they up to the same par. Most people pick things up quick but forget quick too. You want to be good at something, you do it repeatedly.

Whether one agrees with if they need instrument training is a different matter. If must do it, then dammit, they're going to be good at it.

Repeating things of course is boring for instructors, but its useful for students.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Everything skill you need to know for your entire flying career is taught before you get to the circuit in the PPL syllabus. I am ashamed to say that when I first started instructing I did not put enough emphasis on the ex 5 to 9 foundation skills. After seeing my first few students struggle in the circuit because they could not make the airplane go where they wanted it to go, the penny dropped.

After that my record at the FTU was pretty consistent

My students usually had
-the longest time to solo
-the shortest time to flight test
-the highest fight test scores

The problem is teaching the basics is really boring for the instructor and so I think there is a great temptation to rush through it to get to the more interesting exercises. This is doubly true for instrument rating. I am half way through the IF rating for a PPL who is flying a high performance piston single. The first 10 hours was hood work doing basic turns, climbs, descents, and speed changes. It is incredibly tedious for the instructor, but absolutely essential for the student.

[Rookie50]

Everything skill you need to know for your entire flying career is taught before you get to the circuit in the PPL syllabus. I am ashamed to say that when I first started instructing I did not put enough emphasis on the ex 5 to 9 foundation skills. After seeing my first few students struggle in the circuit because they could not make the airplane go where they wanted it to go, the penny dropped.

After that my record at the FTU was pretty consistent

My students usually had
-the longest time to solo
-the shortest time to flight test
-the highest fight test scores

The problem is teaching the basics is really boring for the instructor and so I think there is a great temptation to rush through it to get to the more interesting exercises. This is doubly true for instrument rating. I am half way through the IF rating for a PPL who is flying a high performance piston single. The first 10 hours was hood work doing basic turns, climbs, descents, and speed changes. It is incredibly tedious for the instructor, but absolutely essential for the student.

So true! I remember thinking when I did my IR, when are we going to get to the (cool) approaches? But we didn't until my Ip was satisfied with my AC control. And I'm happy he did, because I've always since been very comfortable hand flying in IMC, because of that important foundational work.

[Colonel Sanders]

I am half way through the IF rating for a PPL who is flying a high performance piston single

None other than the legendary Richard Collins
once proposed that we have two instrument
ratings: one for fixed gear aircraft, and another
for retractable gear aircraft.

Years ago, I met a guy who bent the wings of his
Piper Meridian. Guess how?

Anyone here old enough to remember the Piper Malibu
re-certification kerfuffle, at the end of which, the
FAA recommended that dentists turn on the pitot heat?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Anyone here old enough to remember the Piper Malibu
re-certification kerfuffle, at the end of which, the
FAA recommended that dentists turn on the pitot heat?

I remember and right in the middle of that mess Malibu values tanked. A buddy of mine saw a nice one going cheap from a desperate spooked owner, and asked if he should buy it. I said hell yes, but he chickened out at the last moment. He kicked himself later as he could have flipped the airplane a year later and made over $ 100,000.

As for my student I am not training him to pass the ride I am training him to a much higher standard, that is the ability to be proficient in single pilot IFR A to B ops in the real world. He will completely familiar with the operation of and have the ability to integrate into every part of his flight; the use of Autopilot, the Flight director and the MFD. He will also have a good start on the weather smarts and route planning knowledge you need to competently fly places you have never been to before. The IFR flight test will occur at some part of the process but it will be just a formality.

Collins was wrong. There should be 2 ratings all right, but they should be 2 Crew or Single Pilot, with the single pilot held to a much higher standard.

edit: Sorry for the thread drift

[photofly]

I hate to say it Colonel, but part of that problem is stuff like this:

turn takes about 30 minutes to get to PPL standard.

It was my comment, and I stand by it 100%.

One way to waste a lot of a student's time is to train them for a rating other than the one they're paying you for. The PPL is not mandated to be an Instrument Rating Light, or an easy CPL. It, and the skills you need to demonstrate to get it, stand well enough on their own.

In this case, the practical test standards mandate merely two minutes straight and level, a rate one turn 180 degrees, and two more minutes straight and level. Criteria are ±200ft, ±15° heading, ±15kts. And try not to peg the turn coordinator in the turn. There's also the recovery from an unusual attitude. Allowing for plenty of repeated practice to achieve consistency, that standard doesn't take 5 hours to reach.

Now, if you think that the instrument time for the PPL should be treated as a mini-IR, if you think that 50hr ppl has a use for being able to achieve significantly higher standards under the hood than the PPL flight test requires, and you think achieving that a worthwhile use of the other 4+ hours of instrument time mandated in the experience requirements - that's a perfectly valid answer to my question of what to do with the rest of the time. By all means spend another 4 hours honing straight-and-level and standard rate turns under the hood.

If you think a PPL could benefit from other use of the mandatory instrument flight time, I'm all ears for that too.

[Shiny Side Up]

that standard doesn't take 5 hours to reach.

I don't think it takes that long, but it certainly takes more than thirty minutes. If anything, to be able to use the instruments reasonably - and only do what the PPL demands - simply takes repeated practice. Just like any instrument flying does (or anything else in flying for that matter). Personally I would dispense with the whole thing except that PPLs just can't keep themselves out of clouds. The amount of time can be debated, but the point is that stuff needs to be revisited. You might not think that another extra hour or so of simple scan, rate one turns, holding headings and altitudes is worth it, and maybe it bores you but I know it definitely helps the students. Case in point: I've seen where instructors have done just that. Only a bit of real hood time, then the rest is spent doing stuff like sight seeing, or other wise screwing around and pencil whipped as hood time. Guess what these people failed on their flight tests?

I would go as far to say that in a majority of instances that students have failed items on tests, when the hard questions were asked, you almost always find "we only did that once" and in a few cases where I've had to beat instructors, you'll get the "well he did it so awesome the first time, I didn't think we needed to review it..."

edit: incidentally, there's a lot of complaining that us instructors just "teach to the test" which feel free if that's all you want to do. We can do better and still stay within the allotted time.

[photofly]

that standard doesn't take 5 hours to reach.

I don't think it takes that long, but it certainly takes more than thirty minutes. If anything, to be able to use the instruments reasonably - and only do what the PPL demands - simply takes repeated practice.

That's fair; but allow me poetic licence on whether it's 30, 60, or 90 minutes. There's still time left over, and latitude over what to do with it.

edit: incidentally, there's a lot of complaining that us instructors just "teach to the test" which feel free if that's all you want to do. We can do better and still stay within the allotted time.

Also a fair point, but let's distinguish between "teaching to the test", which to me means to teach only the test exercises without context or elaboration, and teaching to the test standard - which I think is a honourable and honest target, and one against which the student can judge their own progress - which is something to encourage. Refusing to release someone to take their flight test until they meet your own unwritten, personal and much tighter criteria is another form of milking the student.

If anything, using 5 hours to teaching nothing but level instrument flight and upset recoveries is "teaching to the test". Working on other instrument flight manoeuvres, which aren't tested, *is* doing better, as you put it, and that's what I was asking about.

I would work to get a student to the best standard possible within the allotted time - and if that's a much higher standard than PPL flight test, great. But I wouldn't hold anyone who meets the experience requirement from a flight test because their instrument flight wasn't level to within 20'. I don't think you would either.

[PilotDAR]

I am not an instructor. I do, however, instruct some pilots so as to be proficient on another type of aircraft, within the class. Thus, there is no "test" to be "passed" - other than continuing life, hopefully with no bent aircraft either.

I agree that there are very cost conscious students, whose expectation is to be trained to "pass" - meaning meeting the minimums, perhaps just.... I avoid those people, once I detect them. Success with any skills test is a demonstration that you met a minimum demonstration of skills, that's all.

An instructor is CHEATING a student, if they let them finish an exercise with the belief that a modest demonstration of skills is an acceptable aspiration. The instruct might say that they have met the minimum, so further training is not required to pass the skills test, but they can always do better, and should.

I have done training with pilots, who ask me how many hours they will need for the transition to the type. My only two possible answers are "you're there now" or "more". As those pilots are already appropriately licensed, I can tell them they can take the plane whenever they want. THEY tell ME when they are ready, based upon my demonstrating the expected standard of skill, and their understanding their progress in mastering those skills. But then I mention that I would not send a family member flying with them based upon the skills they have demonstrated to me to that point.

I've had only one pilot who took the plane - after 19 hours of conversion to an advanced single RG, he still was not ahead of it, and I would not write an insurance letter. Generally, I find that pilots agree that some more skills development is a good idea, and I send them later with the warning that I think they are safe, but more and recurring practice wold be very wise. One pilot has come back to me again and again over 26 years, and we do very well together.

I guess that really, I do train to the test, 'cause for what I train, LIFE is the test. not a ride with an examiner. I spend hours with briefing and examples as to HOW the taught skills are needed to save your life in the future.

Instructors who do not, or worse are not experienced enough, to provide at least awareness level training on the requirements for life flying planes are cheating their students. Students who expect or demand training only to pass the test should be given a wake up call, or abandoned.

In doing tailwheel training for a frustrated pilot, I reminded then that they had demonstrated a dozen landings to me - into the wind. I had flown that aircraft a dozen hours of circuits before I felt confident to take on crosswinds in it, and I still don't take my eyes off it until it's stopped off the runway.

I am much less interested in training to the test, or doing it in the minimum hours, as I am in sending out a pilot who has the best change of not getting into trouble - ANY trouble! I opine that that level of confidence in the student's skills can only rarely be achieved in the "minimums". I guess I would not make a very good typical "instructor"......

[photofly]

Mostly I agree with you.

An instructor is CHEATING a student, if they let them finish an exercise with the belief that a modest demonstration of skills is an acceptable aspiration. The instruct might say that they have met the minimum, so further training is not required to pass the skills test, but they can always do better, and should.

Don't imagine that modest performance now equates to a lack of aspiration for the future. It doesn't take any hours at all to equip someone to want to do better, and to be able to improve in the future without the instructor in the aircraft. Continued training beyond flight test standards - without the express consent of the student ("you could take the test tomorrow and pass, do you want more lessons?") - is milking.

Since you're not an instructor, you do have the latitude to say that if you don't like a students attitude you would bin them. Most working instructors don't have the luxury of doing that, for a panoply of reasons.

[Shiny Side Up]

Continued training beyond flight test standards - without the express consent of the student ("you could take the test tomorrow and pass, do you want more lessons?") - is milking.

That would only be if they don't need more time to fulfil the requirements. If you have extra time to do, then it irritates the hell out of me when I find instructors and students have wasted it because they felt things were "good enough". If you got the time, use it well. The instrument flying portion is most prone to this I find, but not the only thing.

[PilotDAR]

Continued training beyond flight test standards - without the express consent of the student ("you could take the test tomorrow and pass, do you want more lessons?") - is milking.

Well... I see this two ways: Yes, if the expressed intent of the training is to pass the test, and get the license, then it would be milking, to take it further. But,

Shame on a candidate whose aspiration is to train to pass the test, get a license, and nothing more. Shame on an instructor who does not use the training opportunity to inspire the student to want to learn more, and do better. It is every pilot's responsibility to seek out, and suitably compensate more training. The training can be pre or post license, but planning to pass the test, get the license, then coast is just the wrong attitude.

So, "milking" should not take place, as long as the instruction is appropriate and skilled. Because, the student should want it, and be prepared to pay, and the instructor should be providing training which is appropriate to the skill set and development. It becomes a conscious and agreed skills development, which is what every student needs, and many pilots too...

[davecessna]

The amount of kissassery in this thread is mind boggling.