Soft Field Technique

[merlin]

The problem is that most instructors are 250 hr wonders with no real experience. As a result most fresh 250 hr commercail poilts can barely land a 172. The college I went to didn't have one instructor with any experience other than instructing, and the latest instructor was a fresh 250 hr grad. It makes no sence. IMHO it should be the other way around, we need guys like Cat Driver to be the instructors. But that will never happen until the whole training industry is completely reworked.

[Shiny Side Up]

What seems to get lost in these discussions about poor landing skills is the simple fact that it is better to teach the correct methods right from the start. Using the excuse of only having 45 hours to teach the basics in is a cop out. We received our PPL's in 30 hours flying tail wheel airplanes, hell most class ones today can't even figure out how to taxi one let alone fly it.

The fact of the matter is though we keep telling people here the silly myth that if you don't get your licence in the minimum time It must be your instructor's fault because he being some poor schmo at the bottom of the aviation world obviously doesn't have any skill. Can some people make excellent pilots in the minimum time? Sure! I've seen a fair chunk of my students do it. Can all of them? No. I'll give you an example of one flying hazard I had the pleasure to teach who believed that since he owned his own airplane that I didn't know what I was talking about showing him said softfield landings (oddly enough a typical arguement from him would start "I was chatting with some people online...") Could he do propper soft fields? Damn straight, I taught him. But as soon as he had that licence in hand back he went to pounding his poor airplane on its nose wheel - landing it that way was "good enough" for him. Did he do the licence in 45 hours? Close. Did he make a good pilot in 45 hours? Hell no. The problem I find here is generally the attitude amongst a lot of private pilots and fledgeling commercial pilots - I don't need no one to tell me how to fly this airplane (Anti-authority or Macho take your pick) and any landing is good enough.

Unfortunately many flight instructors were never taught the correct skills therefore they are incapable of teaching something they do not understand.

True - but definitely not all - so lets not entirely place the blame on the instructors here. The attitude of plenty of students I've had is simply they don't care if they don't see the excersise as applying to them which is a really shitty attitude in my books - recall another student who's favorite question was: "Do I have to know this for the flight test?" God forbid you use that extra tid-bit of wisdom to make yourself a better than average pilot.

As for the test examiners who accept these sloppy teaching methods, that is getting closer to the root cause of the problem....ignorant test examiners = ignorant pilots.

I'll 100% agree with you on this one. Unfortunately the system is set up from the get go this way. After all a student really has to only be 60% proficient to pass the test to become a private pilot (both on the written and the flight test - a score of all 3 s will provide a pass) Scary huh? The result being of course that we have plenty of C grade pilots out there, and once they get that piece of TC official paper in their hands the only time they're interested in learning more is if they scare the shit out of themselves. No offense but this is the biggest problem I see whit most cadet programs out there, pilots who get fired through a cookie cutter progam and flight tested regardless of their proficiency. But I digress once again.

[Cat Driver]

Two questions.

Why do so many nose wheel aircraft land flat with all three wheels touching at the same time or on the nose wheel first?

Who wrote the section on wheel landings in the Flight Training Manual on page 111?

Cat

[hz2p]

1) excessive approach speed (easy)

2) I'd guess Wayne Foy, a Transport Canada Inspector that recently wrecked an aircraft by illegally hand-propping it without securing it, and with no one at the controls. This of course is against regulations, and could be considered at least negligent if not reckless. A video of Wayne dragging his heels, hanging off the strut as the empty aircraft circled him, the engine roaring: priceless. Needless to say, no charges were laid. The rules don't apply to some people, I guess.

[Cat Driver]

HHmmmmmm..

Why don't they get someone who actually knows these subjects to write the training guidelines?

With crap like this being foisted on the poor instructors its no wonder there is such a low level of flying skills evident in the pilot pool.

Hey hz2p if you know this guy, maybe you could get TC to pay me to teach him how to fly so I can get some of the money back that TC stole from me ....

I would be willing to teach him for $ 1,000.00 dollars per hour...cash of course with no paper record.

Cat

[sakism]

Just a short note about the grass strip near Peterborough to which Vertigo refered.

The name is Elmhirst Resort (although it is under Keene in CFS) and it is a PPR aerodrome. Don't know how long this has been but the owners are concerned now concerned about liability issues. Haven't heard of them refusing anyone permission, but make sure you call first.

[Flaperons]

Holy Chr*st I'm sick of hearing about how it was done in the old days, and how great of a pilot you were back when you had 30, 50, 75 hours. Give it a rest. You sucked back in the old days. Just like low-time pilots suck today.

As instructors, you should all realise that the biggest problem these days is NOT that the instructors are bad; it's the students who are far more distracted with other shit in their lives (besides goin' down to tha swimmin' hole, like you old farts). And they're flying out of airports that are busier, in airspace that is busier, so their time doesn't get maximized like it used to.

And that is bullsh*t about the colleges having policies against grass. Simply not true at the one in KZ.

Everybody shut up.

[mcrit]

Hey Flaperon, why don't you stop flapping your mouth, you need a bit more experience before you're entitled to that sort of verbal diarhea.

[Stan_Cooper]

here's how I see it:

My training consists of 2 years at a college, where I learned 10% of my flying skills.

After, 6 months of float and bush strip training taught me 90% of my flying skills.

I always felt that a student cannot learn effectively if s/he is too restricted. I think that training should give a taste of the real world.

Maybe if you'd applied yourself in the first two years of the college program you would have made it in to the third year, and the balance would be a little less skewed? I would say that's a glowing compliment for the college system if you learned 10% of your flying skill there while only attending 5% of the classes.

[hz2p]

Flaperon: surely before you were born, like many of the old-timers here, I soloed in a tailwheel aircraft with 4 hours of dual.

These days, commercial pilots with over 200 hours can't fly tailwheel aircraft. They don't know how to land in a crosswind, or on a runway shorter than 4000 feet. I can only imagine how long they'd last on floats.

You tell me: have the piloting skills improved or worsened over the years?

Keep punching the buttons on your GPS and hope the batteries hold out.

[Right Seat Captain]

Maybe if you'd applied yourself in the first two years of the college program you would have made it in to the third year

Umm, not all college programs are 3 years Stan.

[chipmunk]

here's how I see it:

My training consists of 2 years at a college, where I learned 10% of my flying skills.

After, 6 months of float and bush strip training taught me 90% of my flying skills.

I always felt that a student cannot learn effectively if s/he is too restricted. I think that training should give a taste of the real world.

Maybe if you'd applied yourself in the first two years of the college program you would have made it in to the third year, and the balance would be a little less skewed? I would say that's a glowing compliment for the college system if you learned 10% of your flying skill there while only attending 5% of the classes.

How much do you really think you can learn (at a college program or flight school, doesn't matter) flying around a circuit and practice area, with occasional cross countries to other nearby airports plus one that is 300NM away when the weather is perfect, and flying the same ILS over and over again? That is not real world flying!! Even though everyone must do it to learn the basics, Skies statement is correct - you learn SO much more out in the REAL WORLD!

[Stan_Cooper]

Skies statement is correct - you learn SO much more out in the REAL WORLD!

I agree that the experience you get in a college program is enough to go on to a job and learn how to fly properly, but it wouldn't be fair for me to say "I hardly learned anything in the college program" if I had failed out half way through. I think Northern Skies made a misleading and unfair assessment of the college system.

I agree with the other posts in this thread, I think that it's important to get actual soft-field experience, and I wish that my college would allow us to do that. Fortunately, the school where I did my PPL took us in to the sketchiest grass strips we could find (Strathroy,) and it does kinda freak me out that there are CPLs coming out every year who've never seen 3 miles vis, who have never really actually made the go/no go decision for themselves, or who have never touched down on a soft field.

Northern Skies: I wasn't personally attacking you, I was just calling you on the point I made in the first para.

[5x5]

I get tired of everyone, especially the more experienced posters, jumping all over flight training all the time. I don't think that all the ills in modern aviation are due to poor INITIAL training. Remember, that's all a flight school provides.

Learning in aviation should continue throughout your career. It is unreasonable to expect that recent graduates should have boundless experience, encountered every type of situation imaginable, handled them all perfectly and at the same time completed their training in the least amount of time at the cheapest flight school they could find. You hadn't done this back when you trained, why expect it now?

For all the old guys who soloed in single digits, completed their PPL in sub-40 hour times - congratulations. It might be hard to remember that far back, but I doubt anyone ran up to you after your flight test and asked you to take their tri-motor on a trans-continental flight. You still had a lot to learn - the same as any new pilot.

Times change and you can yearn for the old days to your heart's content. To try and compare aviation yesterday and today is as pointless as comparing eras in hockey or child raising or school systems or anything else.

It's still up to the companies that employ new pilots to provide the real-world experience. It's always the employment situation that provides that experience - in any industry. That's why it's called "Real World". School proivdes you the basic skills and knowledge to successfully learn in the real world. It's the guidance and mentoring that you receive while working that truly transforms and eager 250 hour wannabe into the 12,000 hour wonder.

While you may not personally approve of the quality of current pilots, I have never seen the accident statistics that support your view that today's pilots (because of inferior training) are so awful. In fact, I think it's true that aviation has never been safer.

There is a wide variety in the skills and abilities of today's graduates just as there has always been. Some instructors are better than others, just as they have always been. Some schools offer different programs and experiences, just as they have always done.

So, my request is that all you guys with all the wonderful experience and skills honed over the years - continue to provide positive, continuous transference of those skills to any junior pilots you work with or encounter.
Eventually they will be the 12,000 hour wonder in the future.

[Shiny Side Up]

Truer words, have never been spoken 5x5 my man.

Except the bit about the hockey. Old time Hockey was so much better than hockey now a days. Mainly because they still played it instead of argued about playing it.

[Cat Driver]

5x5 :

"While you may not personally approve of the quality of current pilots, I have never seen the accident statistics that support your view that today's pilots (because of inferior training) are so awful. In fact, I think it's true that aviation has never been safer. "

So in your mind we need accidents to determine that there are far to many sloppy pilots being licensed today?

Maybe the reason aviation does not show a noticable increase in accidents is because the aircraft are becomming easier to fly and more resistant to ham handed pilots?

Cat

[Shiny Side Up]

But he has a point Cat that sloppy pilots does not equal poor training. The worsening attitude of pilots does - its the same thing that most people are standing in awe of the mighty BRS system these days. After all an instructor has no control over what a new pilot does with his licence after it gets signed off. Unfortunately its not just aviation that this is a problem with, everyone in the world today wants everything faster, cheaper, easier and they want it NOW! Any short cut they can take with their flying to save a few bucks is astounding. I see people do sloppy run ups (if they even do them!) extreme tailwind take offs, low altitude turn outs, and a variety of other hazardous aviation practices all in the sake of saving a 0.1 in the log book or a few pints of avgas.

Welcome to the 2000's Cat, things unfortunately aren't changing for the better, the best you can hope for is that people don't kill themselves too often in the process, or at least kill some one you know.

[Shiny Side Up]

How much do you really think you can learn (at a college program or flight school, doesn't matter) flying around a circuit and practice area, with occasional cross countries to other nearby airports plus one that is 300NM away when the weather is perfect, and flying the same ILS over and over again? That is not real world flying!! Even though everyone must do it to learn the basics, Skies statement is correct - you learn SO much more out in the REAL WORLD!

How much learning you do in such a program is up to you. After all where you do your 300 NM cross country to is up to you. After all there should be plenty of opportunity in that approx 150hrs of time you have to do after your private to subject yourself to some good experiences. Here's sort of my quandary as an instructor: While I can reccomend where a fledgling commercial flyer should go to get their hours to get some good experience, I cannot force them to do so. You're right lots of them burn it up in the circuit or short jaunts on the same old tired route. So now do we blame a program or an instructor for a student missing out on a valuable opportunity to learn? No. Flight training is just like any other education - you have to take it upon yourself to make the most of it. There's no such thing as teaching after all, there's only helping someone else learn. But its something I keep harping on here - there's just a piss poor attitude out there amongst the general population, which unfortunately includes current and would be pilots.

[chipmunk]

How much learning you do in such a program is up to you. After all where you do your 300 NM cross country to is up to you. After all there should be plenty of opportunity in that approx 150hrs of time you have to do after your private to subject yourself to some good experiences. Here's sort of my quandary as an instructor: While I can reccomend where a fledgling commercial flyer should go to get their hours to get some good experience, I cannot force them to do so. You're right lots of them burn it up in the circuit or short jaunts on the same old tired route. So now do we blame a program or an instructor for a student missing out on a valuable opportunity to learn? No. Flight training is just like any other education - you have to take it upon yourself to make the most of it. There's no such thing as teaching after all, there's only helping someone else learn. But its something I keep harping on here - there's just a piss poor attitude out there amongst the general population, which unfortunately includes current and would be pilots.

I agree that the flight training is what you make of it and how you choose to build your hours affects that. I was an instructor for 2 years (still rated, and do a little IFR training occasionally, but began an FO job last summer) and have a lot of respect for that part of the industry. I don't believe what I have said about learning so much more in "the real world" indicates I have a poor attitude - it is what I have experienced so far in my career. To clarify: Flight training provides you with the basic tools. The real world provides you with experience, decision making skills regarding SO many different things (bad weather, high traffic areas, real emergencies etc etc), that the controlled environment of flight schools cannot provide (for safety reasons of course). That experience, I believe, is what a large part of being a pilot is.

[shitdisturber]

Maybe the reason aviation does not show a noticable increase in accidents is because the aircraft are becomming easier to fly and more resistant to ham handed pilots?

Cat

Sorry, I don't buy it. The 172 has been around since when, 1956 or so? I suspect that accident statistics will show a decrease per hours flown, even though we've been using the same basic aircraft for almost fifty years. Since I doubt the 172 of the fifties was any harder to fly than the 172 of the seventies or the 172 of the twenty-first century, that has to say something.

[Cat Driver]

Well shitdisturber we get the accident reports in England sent to our company and note that the most prevelant type of damage to Cessna 150/ 52/ 72 aircraft is nose wheel damage caused by landing to flat, also I see the same flat landing habit here in Canada at the local airports.

Why do so many pilots land on the nose wheel, is it because their instruction is so much better to day than in the fifties?


Hmmm.. when did we first get the 172? I am trying to remember and all I can recall was how impressed I was with the 170 the first time I flew it and was shown full flaps on approach, I think that was 1956 or so. But I'll be dammned if I can recall my first flight in a 172.

Cat

[shitdisturber]

Students landing flat, the bane of the instructor. How do you prevent it? Beats the hell out of me; it varies depending on the individual. I've had some students that I was completely comfortable sending solo after eight hours instruction; the old "wake me up when you get back in" thing. I can name others that, even though they're licenced, I'm glad are now flying someone else's airplanes since it cuts down on the damage to ours. Since TC won't let me use an "encouragement stick" or a cattle prod to correct bad habits it can be very frustrating sometimes.

[Northern Skies]

"encouragement stick"

What do you think the PTR is for? Just roll it up and give 'er.

[Flaperons]

To all you amazing old-timers out there who soloed in 4 to 8 hours:

Do you honestly believe that you'd be ready to do the same in the congested airspace that exists nowadays? What did you know? How to take off, fly a rectangle, and land? Was there any traffic out there back then? Were you in a radar environment? Were you ever told to extend your downwind 4 miles for the citation coming in ahead of you. Were your ears constantly being bombarded by calls due to congestion in the zone? Were you at a controlled airport? Did you waste an extra .1 or .2 on every flight, waiting for takeoff? Did you have fuel injection? Did your aircraft have ANY complex systems on them that could fail and ruin your day, besides the engine? Was your airport environment surrounded by buildings offering not only no options in the event of an engine failure from an extended downwind, but also substantial mechanical turbulence on short final? Did you have anything else going on in your life at the time that distracted you from your dream? Did you have a TV? How about an Xbox? Did it take you an hour to drive to the airport in sh*tty traffic? Was flying as expensive, relatively speaking? And finally: Were you really that good, or is it maybe just the rose-coloured glass you look back through that makes you think you were?

I'm sorry, but I'm just sick of hearing about your glory days. They weren't that glorious.

There are bad students AND bad instructors out there. THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN! Give it a rest.

In answer to the original post: Yes, students sould get a least a couple of grass or gravel landings under their belts before being signed off. I think we all agree on that. But who cares if they can fly a tail-dragger or not? Honestly. How many tail-draggers are still being produced? How many new pilots are actually ever going to fly one? Sorry to mess with your nostalgia, but who gives a sh*t? (Yes - I've done some tail-dragger time, and I respect the complexity in a x-wind. So bite your tongue.)

And mcrit: Don't pull that high-time, world-wise sh*t on me. I'm not that new. What "real-world" experience do you actually have? Sorry, but instructing doesn't count.

[5x5]

No Cat, I dertainly don't think we NEED to have accidents to prove there is lack of skill.

Anyway, it is still an indicator of how well the overall system is working when dealing with an activity that has a fairly high inherent risk. And it is a system - pilot, airplane, airspace, ATC, runways, nav/com, even your dreaded TC all play a part. No one part causes all the problems and no one part cures all the pain.

As for airplanes, a grass strip is not only easier to land on with a tail-dragger, but amazingly easier to land on. The resistance of the grass slows the plane down more quickly which reduces the inherent instablity in the roll-out and also keeps the tailwheel in line by resisting its desire to swing out to the side. Also, the mains are built to absorb the shocks of the ruts and rocks as the tailwheel (which bears little weight) follows merrily along. So if a new student or pilot doesn't land quite straight or with the stick a lttle forward, it won't ground loop as easily and bite him. Tail draggers were built to handle the type of landing fields that existed when they were deisgned.

BTW, how many of your circuits before your 9 hour solo or your 30 hour PPL were on pavement?

As for the nose wheel, it eliminates the built-in instability for roll-out and taxi that the tail dragger has. On a hard, smooth suface it wants to run straight. If a new student or pilot doesn't land quite straight or with the nose a little low, it won't ground loop as easily and bite him. Again, the tricycle gear is built to handle the type of landing fields that exist.

However, landing on grass or rough fields is much more risky and the nose wheel becomes the weak link. A couple of grass landings during training won't make someone a bush pilot. However, a nosed over airplane with the nose wheel ripped off could certainly drive a stake through the heart of a school struggling just to keep going financially. The cost of repairs and the increase in insurance rates just don't seem to justify the risk.

Let the bush operators who have purpose built equipment (stronger nose gear, bigger tires) and experienced pilots give the continued training to the new hires in the "real world". That's part of their role in the system.

And I do think it continues to work well as a whole.