class 4 flight test :S

[trey kule]

Well, as we have drifted so much of topic.

1. Demonstrated X-wind, while done for certification purposes, is not a limiting factor.
It is what is says it is..Demonstrated, with no special techniques. Any pilot worth their salt can usually and quite easily exceed the number (and it is not limitation). While there are exceptions, in small light aircraft, the usual procedures is to line up with the centerline of the runway., drop a wing into the wind, and then use rudder to maintain the center line..When you run out of rudder you are at the practical limit for x-wind. But they dont teach that much in FTU's.

2. As to the poster and his full flap, super daring, X-wind landing. Take it for what it was worth..Kid trying to impress us all. Lets hope he does not try to impress his students with the same thing as they wont know better and could hurt themselves.

[rob-air]

I dont want to impress anyone espesialy not in the virtual wolrd.....I was just saying that every examiner or pilot fly with different trechniques and that the one who gave me my ride liked the use of full flaps on x wind landings...here's an explanation, he said he use to fly twin otters and in order to stop before the end of the runway you had to go in with full flaps x wind or not....now you can beleive me or not but come on dont pass jugements

[rubberduck]

The fact slow speed flight is a range of speeds was exactly what I was referring to. the impression I got from the poster was that they , how think the stall horn and slow flight are linked, and that unless the stall warning horn was going off you were not in slow flight. And that is a real problem, because you have to recognize slow flight situations (back side of the curve) long before the stall warning horn starts going off. My point, to try and clarify it, was that if we are suddenly equating the stall warning horn to slow flight, we are missing the point.

And he was offering advice to a pilot taking a flight test...here is what I see

Examiner: when is the plane in the slow flight ?
Pilot taking advice from here...Why, when we hear the stall warning horn going off , of course.
they are very close together.

Anyone who thinks that is the correct answer needs a bit of remedial training, and if they are an instructor need a slap to the back of the head.

Not sure where Trey Kule you think i said anything about the stall horn being the only thing assosiated with slow flight. All i said was to demonstrate the various phases of flight leading up to a stall instead of going directly from cruise conditions to a stall. I never even mentioned any thing about slow flight characteristics. The only point that i made on the topic was to teach the lesson in a way that expands on knowlegde and skills taught in previous lessons. You know, Known to Unkown, it's a learning factor, you learn about them when you do your class 4. Transport likes to see that you use stuff that you learned to teach the lessons. No need to pull stuff out of the air about points i didn't make.

[Cat Driver]

This " Learning factor " thing that Is so much mentioned here, if one teaches without ever remembering these factors will you be a poor teacher?

Because I never ever consciously think about them.

[Shiny Side Up]

This " Learning factor " thing that Is so much mentioned here, if one teaches without ever remembering these factors will you be a poor teacher?

Because I never ever consciously think about them.

Nor do I consiously think about them either. One must remember to put one's self in the shoes of someone new to the activity of teaching though where such factors might not always be apparently obvious. Remember the people that the system is designed to make into instructors as well - fresh CPLs who realisticallly probably don't even have much experience (or maybe have never) teaching anyone anything. The "learning factors" are really a lesson in basic psycology - how do people remember stuff and why. While remembering them all certainly might not be necessary to be a good teacher, I don't see how being mindful of them could hurt.

[trey kule]

...here's an explanation, he said he use to fly twin otters and in order to stop before the end of the runway you had to go in with full flaps x wind or not....

Oh, well than , please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding. I did not realize you were taking your instructor's flight test in a twin otter utilizing a short strip. On the other hand if that was not the case perhaps you should learn to apply the appropriate techniques to the type of plane you are flying, and have a little chat with an examiner who thinks that the x-wind technique used for a twin otter is the same as a small cessna. I hope you never have an examiner who has flown a 737 doing a ride with you in a 172. But then in the old days when I was an instructor, I never had to simulate a short field, x-wind landing, in a twin otter using a cessna either. If I had, the examiners in those days, would have crucified us for not understanding the aircraft we were flying.

As to rubberduck. My comment was made with regard to the comment about how close slow flight is to the stall. Nothing more than that. In reading the reason for the slow flight and the stall warn horn, I understand now the flight test requirement, but it seems to have precluded understanding of what slow flight is if someone thinks they are so close that the stall horn must be going off for you to be in slow flight. Known to unknown? Appears to me, in this instance, it is unknown to what they believe is known.
This comment is not directed at anyone in particular, but it would benefit the training industry, I think, if instructors spent a bit less time on being able to regurgitate applicable CARS, and more time on having a real understanding of the theory of flight and the practical implementatin of it.

[Cat Driver]

I would be impressed if they taught attitudes and movements properly before moving to the next lesson.

[Shiny Side Up]

This comment is not directed at anyone in particular, but it would benefit the training industry, I think, if instructors spent a bit less time on being able to regurgitate applicable CARS, and more time on having a real understanding of the theory of flight and the practical implementation of it.

In practice, one can't come at the expense of the other. Any instructor I've run into who's been weak on one or the other wastes their student's time and money to the detriment of us all. Worst case, they endanger themselves and said student. There is no golden hammer that will fix the training world.

[trey kule]

I would be impressed if they taught attitudes and movements properly before moving to the next lesson

From what I have seen lately Cat, I am not sure that they are even teaching attitudes and movements at all. Certainly, it appears that new students are not encouraged to look out the windscreen to determine their attitude ( or look for traffic) and power is something you set according to the book.
Banked movements are made totally with reference to the artificial horizon, and yaw is determined solely by the ball. It is quite scary. On the other hand, boy do these new pilots know their CRM, and all their calls. They can tell me, to the inch, how many FPM you need on a descent on the appoach based on a 3 deg glide path and their ground speed, but cant for the life of them determine if they are overshooting or undershooting by looking at the runway through the windscreen.They can use the phrase SOP at least three times in every conversation, and can tell me everything I ever wanted to know about turbine engines, even if they have never actually flown in a plane with them.

I agree SSU. It is about balance, but I think it is a bit weighted towards regulatins, and less towards actually practical application of theory.

My weekend rant.

[FlightSolutions]

can anybody give me an idea what im up for??? what types of lessons do you usually get during a class 4 instructor flight test?

Know Ex.1-15 down pat. They are the foundation of every thing else. Bring some granola bars with you as it will be a long day. Take your time.

[Shiny Side Up]

I would be impressed if they taught attitudes and movements properly before moving to the next lesson

From what I have seen lately Cat, I am not sure that they are even teaching attitudes and movements at all. Certainly, it appears that new students are not encouraged to look out the windscreen to determine their attitude ( or look for traffic) and power is something you set according to the book.
Banked movements are made totally with reference to the artificial horizon, and yaw is determined solely by the ball. It is quite scary. On the other hand, boy do these new pilots know their CRM, and all their calls. They can tell me, to the inch, how many FPM you need on a descent on the appoach based on a 3 deg glide path and their ground speed, but cant for the life of them determine if they are overshooting or undershooting by looking at the runway through the windscreen.They can use the phrase SOP at least three times in every conversation, and can tell me everything I ever wanted to know about turbine engines, even if they have never actually flown in a plane with them.

I agree SSU. It is about balance, but I think it is a bit weighted towards regulations, and less towards actually practical application of theory.

You might be seeing a different segment of the pilot populace than I see, but here's what I see for what little its worth. First its easy to blame schools and instructors, one would assume that any failings that pilots have would be directly attributable to them, if that was the case though, I would expect that pilots would generally have uniform weak areas, and in my experience they don't. Even recently when I was doing my evil work of making new instructors, even students of the same program, shared same instructors were markedly different in their strong and weak areas. It would seem that the "cookie cutter" isn't cutting cookies all the same. Which is strange considering that when I see instructors teach they are very consistent whether that be good or bad. Instructors teach the same lesson, the same way all the time, they do what they do well all the time, they do what they do poorly all the time. Here's what I've concluded, again take it for what its worth.

1) Students do well with what they're interested in. Chances are if you got a pilot who can tell you everything about a turbine engine, that's what turns his crank. You might say that a school or an instructor taught him those things or placed emphasis on them, but I would counter that said student sought out or emphasized those things himself. Ask students why they choose where they go for flight training and why. Likely you can pick out which students will meet your approval before they even start flight training.

2) Students are more interested in what they do well. Its a rare person who can focus on and improve an area that they don't do well at. In that train of thought people also like to toot their own horn, they like it a lot. So if they do do something well (like being able to tell you all the pieces to a PT6 and their part numbers) you're going to hear more about that than anything else.

Now I know 1) and 2) sound the same, and they are really just two sides of the same coin that also play off each other.

3) Students are affected most by their first instructor. Many of the differences I see in students have nothing to do with whatever CPL program they went through, but whomever was their PPL instructor. CPL programs can't erase any damage that's been done or conversely remove any good practices from this stage, they can only add to it they can never overwrite. Something to think about, which the system doesn't really take into account. That being said though, students of course generally pick their instructors based upon 1) and 2) above. This I know from selling flight training for years. Yes I said selling. Stick and rudder doesn't sell well to a majority of the market interested in CPL training, anything they percieve that will get them a fast track into an airliner does.

[Big Pistons Forever]

3) Students are affected most by their first instructor. Many of the differences I see in students have nothing to do with whatever CPL program they went through, but whomever was their PPL instructor. CPL programs can't erase any damage that's been done or conversely remove any good practices from this stage, they can only add to it they can never overwrite. .

Sorry shiny I have to call you on that. The fundamental problem with CPL training is an unwillingness to start the course by revisiting ex 5-9 and not proceed until the student can demonstrate accurate aircraft control. I specify I want to see + - 20 ft on altitude, + - 2 knots on speed, and the ball no more than 1/8 out of the cage 90 % of the time with any deviations recognized and corrected without prompting for the remaining 10 %. To do that you have to ride the student like a cheap Ho. It is hard work and demoralizing for both the instructor and the student but bad habits can be corrected......and it is amazing how much better the rest of the course goes when you invest the upfront time on the foundation flying skills.

[Shiny Side Up]

Sorry shiny I have to call you on that. The fundamental problem with CPL training is an unwillingness to start the course by revisiting ex 5-9 and not proceed until the student can demonstrate accurate aircraft control.

I'm not disputing that what you say isn't a problem, but we're not just talking about aircraft control here, but all the ideas and attitudes the student brings to their learning process. I've seen some people who have good flying skills but you can see little quirks will survive or even sometimes crop up well after they do their CPL training. For example the continued propogation of the "any conflicting please advise" is near impossible to train out of someone if they were taught it during their PPL (barring the use of extraordinary measure such as, but not limited to, electroshock therepy). I would postulate that a student who was taught poorly from the start, even in spite of being harsh on them to bring thme to an acceptable standard during or prior to CPL training will eventually revert if left unsupervised. Only continual review can keep said individual up to par, and even then in some cases the ammount that may be required may be too arduous to be worthwhile. This of course stems from 1) and 2) above. Is the student really interested in those aspects of learning to fly? Many aren't. Like all physical activities to do well, and to continue to do well, they require constant practice which is the real price of mastering the activity. If you're interested enough in said activity, one will make the effort.

[iflyforpie]

I didn't need to be taught attitudes and movements because I had a ton of hours on Flight Simulator.

Sorry shiny I have to call you on that. The fundamental problem with CPL training is an unwillingness to start the course by revisiting ex 5-9 and not proceed until the student can demonstrate accurate aircraft control.

I am reminded of famous Green Bay Packers head coach Vince Lombardi when he addressed his team of professional players. 'Gentlemen, this is a football!' I'm sure there was at least one player who thought 'yeah, no sh!t coach' but it's a huge reminder of the importance of basics.

I charged right into the fun stuff of multi-IFR for my CPL training and I think my only saving grace was that I did a float rating right before. Having three flight tests during my training certainly kept the pressure on to fly right, but it would have been a lot easier if somebody had taught me Attitudes and Movements correctly in the first place.

It wasn't really until my intructor rating that I got the true jist of it, and it should have happened the first day before doing climbs, descents, and turns.

[trey kule]

There is some really good points of veiw expressed. I know some of what was posted got me to thinking. You are right in that our perspectives are different. Unfortunately, when a new CPL finishes up their FTU training and applies for a job and goes for an evaluation, the company is not intersted in correcting their bad habits..They just dont hire them.

I do think however, that we all agree, that attitudes and movements is a critical and important first step in learning to fly properly. I hope some new instructors reading this agree also, and take the time to really understand how to teach it properly at the very beginning. It would make a much nicer career for many CPLs.

As an aside, in looking through new CPLs log books I notice a big rush through all the basic exercises and a great deal of time spent in the circuit prior to solo, which indicates that the students are learning how to control the plane while doing circuits instead of learning how to properly control the airplane prior to practicing circuits..Just a general observation.

As to my PT6 reernece. That was just an example I recalled from to many of the college grads in particular.

In any event, some of the posts have gotten me to thinking.

[Shiny Side Up]

With all this talk about how people are deficient in their attitudes and movements its also worth while noting that the FIG itself doesn't do a good job of emphasizing their importance in the layout of the lesson plans they present. Attitudes and Movements, Straight and Level, Climbs Turns and Descents are all expected to have been mastered by lesson plan 4 where we move on to Range and Endurance. While lesson plans 2 and 3 are tagged at the beginning blurb with:

before advancing to the next lesson.

Read the full blurb on LP.2

This lesson plan provides for instruction and practice of the basic flight manuevers. The student should be able to perform basic climbs, descents, turns and level flight without assistance within suitable tolerances assigned by the instructor, and have a clear understanding of the procedures to be followed when leaving and joining the circuit before advancing to the next lesson plan.

Note the underlined section. I suspect that in a lot of training the underlined gets the emphasis of the lesson (which learning factor is at play here?) than the proficiency of flying the airplane. What are they going to remember the most about the flight? I would also suspect that many advance to the next LP - and in some programs there is a big push to move on - before some of the basics are hammered home. LP 3 is much the same. If one followed this regimen, that would mean for a full maybe three hours of concentration on the subject - but often a lot less since we have all those other things that detract from the meat of the lesson.

Since many PPL students get raced through these important bits of training, are we suprised when they want to race through CPL training?

As an aside, in looking through new CPLs log books I notice a big rush through all the basic exercises and a great deal of time spent in the circuit prior to solo, which indicates that the students are learning how to control the plane while doing circuits instead of learning how to properly control the airplane prior to practicing circuits..Just a general observation.

Much the same I've seen, and the TC people lament it as well. That being said though there is a big push to race through these, both from the student and instructor end. There's a big stigma about going solo for some reason in this business, and the misguided race to that end hurts more than it helps.

[Big Pistons Forever]

While the FIG in general is a pretty good book it has some things I don't like. One of my biggest complaints is the fact that Attitudes and Movements tells you to talk about instrument indication when teaching A & M. I make a point of not mentioning the instruments, telling the student the point of the exercise is to learn to recognize the attitude by what they see out the windscreen. If the students are looking at the instruments (a real problem with flight simmers) I just cover them all up. ASI and Altimeter and the ball get introduced in ex 6-9 but the AI is only discused when we get to instrument flying at the end of the course.