The Kobayashi Maru

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

For the non-Trek fans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru

This popped into my head up in a preflight briefing with my instructor, after discussing the value (or lack thereof) of surprising students during training.

I'd like to hear from instructors here - do you think there would be value in putting your student into a situation, simulated or otherwise, where there is no good outcome? I honestly don't know what value this would have in primary flight training, but somehow I think it would have some value.

Front of mind would be engine failures or perhaps control surface failures - either in flight where there is no suitable landing spot, or during takeoff or landing, where you can't make the field. Or perhaps "you just lost altitude and airspeed indicators during a precautionary approcach" (possible with a pitot static blockage, for example). I can think of a few more examples I'm sure, but it's more the idea - is there any value to placing a student into a situation from which there is no winning outcome?

Star Trek did legitimately teach me many things - among them, that there are situations where we must choose the least worst of all possible bad outcomes. I'm genuinely wondering if people see any value in such a teaching exercise.

[photofly]

No. There are lots of situations that have no “correct” choice, and no guarantee of a good outcome. But let’s leave the drama behind, ok? Learning to fly is a humdrum every day activity, not a tv show, and you are getting a private pilot licence, not becoming a hero starship captain.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

The TV show was just a reference to what I think is a good idea. Didn't mean to make it sound "dramatic" - but the reference may make it seem like I meant to. To be totally honest, the title is clickbait.

It is perhaps not even a flight training question, but framed within the constraints of an aeronautical emergency it takes on a new dimension. What do you do if your engine fails, and there is no place to land?

Personally I do this as I am teaching my nephews to drive. On a country late night drive, I've been known to just turn the engine off from the passenger seat (I understand this would not be acceptable in an aircraft), in the dead of winter. Tell them the fan belt just snapped, or a coolant hose just fell off. What would they do? I've found it to be a useful teaching exercise to have them go through the mental arithmetic of how they could have been better prepared for it - because it could have been anything that stranded them. Completely different, but I do find it to be useful.

Then again, perhaps I'm just watching too much Mayday lately.

[photofly]

I’m going to need someone to explain to me why physically turning the engine off is beneficial to a discussion of what to do if a fan belt fails. You couldn’t just ask them to pull over somewhere safe? Or have the discussion while still driving?

I do find it to be useful

but does the person you’re trying to teach?

[digits_]

Depends on your definition of "no good outcome".

A forced landing in a field could be considered that way, as you might wreck your plane.
That same forced landing could also kill you if you're unlucky, even if you do everything right.

If you ever end up in a situation where you'll be facing certain death, then there is no point training for it.

Most (all?) sim sessions have some sort of variation on smoke in cockpit or in the cabin, which in reality is a big killer. In the sim you can always survive, after all, what would be the point of having the plane break up mid flight? Even though it is possible (and likely), you'll train for the survivable scenario.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I’m going to need someone to explain to me why physically turning the engine off is beneficial to a discussion of what to do if a fan belt fails. You couldn’t just ask them to pull over somewhere safe? Or have the discussion while still driving?

Well, no better than just telling them to shut off the engine, anyway. Generally the idea is to engage in conversation about something else, get them distracted, and then change the situation, quickly and drastically. If they didn't bring winter clothing along, it has very much driven the point home. But I don't want to take the argument into a driving instruction direction, although I can argue about my driving instruction 'till the cows come home - because I, like everyone, am a perfect driver

I do find it to be useful

but does the person you’re trying to teach?

You have a valid point. Speaking for myself, I do find it to be a useful instruction method. The question I'm asking is whether or not I am alone in that.

Depends on your definition of "no good outcome".

A forced landing in a field could be considered that way, as you might wreck your plane.
That same forced landing could also kill you if you're unlucky, even if you do everything right.

If you ever end up in a situation where you'll be facing certain death, then there is no point training for it.

Disagree. Mine is not necessarily the only life at stake. Case in point, US1549 "landing" on the Hudson, or PL603.

Most (all?) sim sessions have some sort of variation on smoke in cockpit or in the cabin, which in reality is a big killer. In the sim you can always survive, after all, what would be the point of having the plane break up mid flight? Even though it is possible (and likely), you'll train for the survivable scenario.

Well, perhaps I am arguing that we should train for non survivable scenarios? Or "you just flew into a cloud - put on the hood".

Kinda arguing a stream of consciousness here.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Depends on your definition of "no good outcome".

The definition of "no good outcome" for the purposes of my argument is that the aircraft is unusable the next day (whether by destruction or off-field landing), no matter what I do - whether or not I am.

[digits_]

Depends on your definition of "no good outcome".

The definition of "no good outcome" for the purposes of my argument is that the aircraft is unusable the next day (whether by destruction or off-field landing), no matter what I do - whether or not I am.

Then that does get trained. Gear up landings, fire evacuation, off field landings, ditching in some cases, dual engine failures in twins, explosive decompressions, ... Plenty of bad scenario's get covered, albeit not always at the PPL or CPL level.

[youhavecontrol]

I've trained and been trained in scenarios where you have so many failures that the aircraft is guaranteed to crash. We do it to see that the pilot will exhaust all his available resources, skills and knowledge and fight the scenario right to the end without resigning. Having said that, we don't remove so much as to render the pilot a mere passenger.

[trey kule]

quickly and dramatically

There Red/white. Fixed it for you..

Some smart people here are giving you good advice. Might be a good idea to consider rather than argue.. just sayin,

[digits_]

Some smart people here are giving you good advice. Might be a good idea to consider rather than argue

Both of those options aren't mutually exclusive. Seems like he's doing both. What's wrong with that? That's how you learn.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The only time I can recall using a Kobayshi Maru story line was once with a student who had very good hands and feet but could be rather irritating in the airplane

We were doing partial panel IF and were down to needle ball and airspeed and he was going on about how easy it was and what was the big deal about partial panel and how he would never get into trouble if the gyro's failed, so I covered up the airspeed and turn co-ordinator

In an aggrieved voice he asks what he was supposed to use to fly the airplane since i had covered up all the instruments

My reply " Well I left you the clock"

We both had a good laugh and I pulled a few of the post it notes off the panel

In more advanced training I have seen a few Kobyashi Maru scenarios but they were all self generated usually as a result of poor system knowledge which led to cascading failures which would have ultimately left the airplane to an unflyable state. A tragic example of that is the 737 MAX crashes

[trey kule]

. Both of those options aren't mutually exclusive. Seems like he's doing both. What's wrong with that? That's how you learn.

True enough, but there can be a fine line sometimes. And my interpretation is that line has been crossed. But perhaps I am wrong.

I guess my thoughts are that all this scenario things have very very limited value in basic training. They amount to testing (evaluating is more gentle). Than actual teaching. Practicing proper procedures, and learning. First the student must be able to do things decently well. And that comes from ground school knowledge, good brief. Ing, perfect demo, and practice.

Different opinions may very.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Some smart people here are giving you good advice. Might be a good idea to consider rather than argue

Both of those options aren't mutually exclusive. Seems like he's doing both. What's wrong with that? That's how you learn.

I learn well by arguing. It doesn't always go over well. Sorry about that.

[tsgarp]

Some smart people here are giving you good advice. Might be a good idea to consider rather than argue

Both of those options aren't mutually exclusive. Seems like he's doing both. What's wrong with that? That's how you learn.

It's a question of degree. Asking questions of and respectfully challenging those who are more knowledgeable than you is a great way to generate learning. However, if this is not done in a respectful and intelligent manner, it will rapidly reach a point were the people who could best help you will find dealing with you too vexing to be worth the bother. At that point you will be left to stew in your own ignorance.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I will question everything you say.

You would not be a worthy pupil otherwise.

No really, Star Trek taught me much.