Interesting Article

[MikeGolfEcho]

Interesting article on the deterioration of hand-flying skills and the potential link to accidents.

http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/prof ... g?page=0,0

Basic cause seems to be:

“We have instructors with the minimum amount of time required to get their CFI ticket, and they’re turning around and teaching other pilots to fly,” he says. “If these instructors don’t even fully grasp the fundamentals of stick-and-rudder flying, how can we possibly expect their students to?”

Blair’s advice is to seek out a qualified instructor with a strong knowledge of both aerodynamics and technology.

Curious what your thoughts are?
MGE

[Colonel Sanders]

This had never occurred to me.

But seriously ... here is an "interview test" for a
flight instructor. Ask him to take you up with a
direct 15 knot crosswind, and land only on the
upwind main, and drive at least 2000 feet down
the runway only on that upwind main without
allowing other tires to touch. After 2000 feet,
have him apply full power and take off again.

If your prospective flight instructor does not
have the requisite stick & rudder skills to do the
above, keep looking. Even if it hurts his feelings.

[tkdowell]

“We have instructors with the minimum amount of time required to get their CFI ticket, and they’re turning around and teaching other pilots to fly,” he says. “If these instructors don’t even fully grasp the fundamentals of stick-and-rudder flying, how can we possibly expect their students to?”

I remember when another instructor, working at the same school I worked at, called this phenomenon the "blind leading the blind".

I was one of these instructors. I earned my Class IV at just over 200 hours, the III at just over 100 hours instructing (the minimum) and the minimum 3 recommends, the II at 500 hours minimum instructing and the I at barely 750 hours. In fact, after the Class I ride, there was some argument over whether or not "renter checkouts" counted as instruction and had we ruled that out I may not have been eligible. Compared to the gentleman who posted above me, I represent the opposite end of the spectrum. I have, and will always have, an enormous amount of respect for instructors who have an abundance of experience, like Col. Hedley.

I recently completed a business degree. All of the instructors at the university had 20-30 years of experience (operating their own businesses) and then consulted for a decade or so, before retiring and then got bored so started teaching. These people have lots of experience and real-life examples to work from - instead of just regurgitating what the textbook said. This makes sense and is, perhaps, the "way it should be". Why not in aviation?

The reality is that instructing is seen as a "stepping stone" to get hours and then move onto the next gig. As a result, it is often treated that way. It shouldn't be, but it is. My Class I instructor (owned and operated his own flight school for 20 years and had a small 703 operation) told me that when you do something, do it as well as it can. Even if you know it's not something you are going to do forever, still make the most of it. Make as much out of it as possible.

When I graduated high school (at 16), I worked at a car dealership for a year to save up money and fly a bit before going off to flight school. I knew that it was a temporary job, that i wasn't "cut-out" to work there long term. But looking back now I learned a lot - working with customers in the shuttle van, doing the occasional oil change, listening to some of the mechanics, learning how profit margin and mark-up and commission were calculated, etc. I got a lot out of it. More than just money.

Same with instructing. I got alot out of it - more than just money (obviously) and experience (hours). Was I qualified to do the training? According to TC, yes. Was I competent? Well that appears to be what this debate is about. Even if I was all "gung-ho" and trying to get a lot out of it and putting a lot of work into it - could I even come close to the level of instruction people like Cat and BPF can provide? Likely not.

However, I think it would be difficult (but not impossible) to stop this self-fulfilling prophecy: an inexperienced instructor training a pilot, who then becomes an instructor and trains another pilot, pushing down the standard or flight training. Why? Well experienced instructors who did it the "right way" - go get industry experience and THEN instruct, are hard to find. In my limited experiencei would say there was, on average, 1 industry-experienced instructor for every 7-8 250 hr instructors. That ratio would be closer to 1:10 if you count how many of the "seasoned veterans" do it part-time. If all the instructors have lots of students, what happens if you get rid of the low-time guys? Demand stays the same, but supply is cut down by a tenth. This would hve an upward pressure on instructor rates but it would be nearly impossible to meet the demand.

The second problem is that experienced instructors seem to only be interested in doing advanced training. This is not a rule, but simply a trend I have seen. This does make sense to a certain degree - certainly having an inexperienced CPL teaching an instructor rating would be problematic - but having the same inexperienced CPL teaching abinitio is also problematic because it leads to bad habits early on at a very impressionable stage.

SOLUTION - what about a referral-based system? A website like flameyourprofessor.com where people who can't perform the maneuver in the Col's post are weeded out?

Btw, I can do this "crosswind trick". It's even on video (the students dad was a recording us from the ground). But there is more to teaching than stick and rudder skills. I find it more satisfying when the student does it.

[tkdowell]

I am an instructor myself so my (EXTREMELY long-winded) opinion may be biased so take it for what it's worth.

[iflyforpie]

Experienced pilots: "We need more experienced instructors!"

Experienced pilots: "I won't do ab initio."

[Colonel Sanders]

I am guilty of avoiding ab initio training these days. I
do a little, but I far prefer to do the advanced stuff, for
various reasons (i.e. no one else will do it). That's my
rationalization, at least.

Another rationalization: I prefer to teach a new instructor
to do the ab initio stuff. That way, when they're going
around the pattern, two people who need the time are
getting it. I surely do not need any more light trainer
time.

Although it would be nice if flight instructors all had 10,000
hours, that's simply not going to happen the way things are
structured these days.

So, what I settle for is a good flight instructor, even if he
isn't terribly experienced. It is a real treat for me when I
can take someone from zero (i.e. bare CPL) to class 4,
but that isn't always possible.

I tend to get a lot of people who are having difficulty with
their class 4, and I like that challenge. Generally, they aren't
the problem - it's their class 1 who's a bad instructor, and I
can fix that, as long as the prospective class 4 is motivated -
and I've never met one who wasn't

I think I can do a lot more for aviation by creating ten good
instructors, than ten outstanding PPL's. More leverage there.

Mentoring new instructors is really important, too. We tend
to give it lip service with the class 2/1 FTU thing, but regardless
of the class of the instructor, sometimes they can use some
advice.

PS Stick & rudder skill is necessary but not sufficient to be a
good flight instructor. I was merely responding to the concerns
of the original post.

[akoch]

would the upwind wheel test work as well on a low wing high aspect ratio aircraft? And who pays for the scraped wing ?

[Colonel Sanders]

would the upwind wheel test work as well on a low wing high aspect ratio

Why don't you find out for us, and get back to us with the results?

I know you can do the one-wheel trick with both high and low
wing aircraft. Most people think the wingtip is about to scrape
with the tiniest amount of bank, and that's just not so.

who pays for the scraped wing?

Story for you. I was doing some instruction on a homebuilt
biplane with no dihedral on the bottom wings. The student
(whom eventually mastered it) was having problems with
landings, and I was giving him plenty of rope. Some instructors
are nervous, ride the controls, and are outright "screamers".
Doesn't help the student's learning much, though.

Anyways, after a fairly interesting landing lesson, sure enough
the lower right wingtip had a bit of abrasion where it contacted
the pavement. The student was heartbroken, but I told him
it was no big deal, and I trimmed the fuzzy bits and brushed
on some rand-o-bond (glue) and silver. Told him to topcoat
it when he got home.

That's a very tricky part of instructing - knowing exactly how
far to let the student go. You take over too early, you impede
his learning. Take over too late, the appearance of the aircraft
is substantially altered.

[Shiny Side Up]

So, what I settle for is a good flight instructor, even if he
isn't terribly experienced.

I hate to say it too, you don't need a ton of experience to teach basic stick and rudder to another person. Lord knows its been done tons in the past and there have been quite a few who figured it out themselves. The basics of pitch, yaw and roll, their interaction with power and the basic concepts of energy management, just aren't that much to figure out. Like playing the piano, casting a hook and skating backwards, all they really require is repetitive practice to do well at. The article though, is revealing of the typical train of thought that inhibits people from doing said practice.

-high accident rate for light general aviation airplanes hasn’t budged in the past decade as a growing body of evidence suggests that the technology many of us thought would vastly improve safety is actually having little or no discernible impact at all.

The big thing that seems to be disconnected with aviation, general aviation in particular, is that all the gizmos don't increase the safety of flight where it probably matters most. Take off and Landing are still - and probably always will be - the most common accident portions of flight because it is solely at this portion that flying goes back down to those basics of a pilot looking out the window and making inputs with his hands and feet from what he sees out there unassisted by all those other bothersome things. The problem though being that flight training - and student perception of what's important about it - revolve mainly around said bothersome things. Flight instructors haven't helped, and in some cases have made this push to this emphasis. Its in the perception of what makes us "safe" and practice of skill is something never discussed there.

[Colonel Sanders]

Landing are still - and probably always will be - the most common accident portions of flight because it is solely at this portion that flying goes back down to those basics of a pilot looking out the window and making inputs with his hands and feet from what he sees out there unassisted by all those other bothersome things.

I would argue that the same is true of takeoffs (or
whenever else you are in close proximity to the
ground).

For example, during takeoff, the aircraft will typically
yaw to the left side of the runway, whereupon I begin
my litany to the student: "right rudder, right rudder, right rudder".

I would hope that during takeoff the student is not
performing a heads-down IFR scan of the instruments,
but instead is looking outside at the runway, and using
that to guide his control inputs.

Similarly, during landing, I teach that the power comes
off after crossing the runway threshold, and I don't want
the student to have their head inside the cockpit watching
the dials. Even the ASI is now irrelevant, close to the
ground. His entire attention should be focussed outside
the aircraft, so he can determine his height, lateral position
to the runway centerline, and alignment with it.

When I am doing surface level aerobatics, I rarely look
at the instruments - only a very quick glance for the top
gates. In effect, I am in formation with the runway - esp
after the half-roll to inverted after takeoff.

[jump154]

today’s general aviation airplanes equipped with synthetic-vision technology, traffic- and terrain-altering capability,

Traffic and Terrian Altering capability? I want me some of that!

[Shiny Side Up]

Landing are still - and probably always will be - the most common accident portions of flight because it is solely at this portion that flying goes back down to those basics of a pilot looking out the window and making inputs with his hands and feet from what he sees out there unassisted by all those other bothersome things.

I would argue that the same is true of takeoffs (or
whenever else you are in close proximity to the
ground).

If you would have quoted the whole line, you wouldn't have to argue, you could just agree. I understand though, I know it can be tough to say.

[Beefitarian]

today’s general aviation airplanes equipped with synthetic-vision technology, traffic- and terrain-altering capability,

Traffic and Terrian Altering capability? I want me some of that!

I try to avoid altering terrian with aircraft I fly.

[MikeGolfEcho]

What I took from the article wasn't just the stick and rudder skills point (in itself), but how stick and rudder skill deterioration seems directly linked to an increase in technology in the cockpit designed to help pilots not kill themselves and others.

In other words, your fiddling with your GPS while taxiing (as in the article)... who does that? Surely there has to be some common sense applied? Stick and rudder skills probably won't be enough to save an unsighlty runway excursion if you're too absorbed trying to prgram in a waypoint. Head inside the cockpit is what I'm talking about.

I have almost no experience (just over 100 hours) and zero experience with a GPS, but it strikes me as odd that people don't like looking outside so much when flying an aeroplane. That's pretty much what I like about it... looking outside at stuff.

So is this what's happening at flight schools around the country? Instructors (who's skills are questionable), are saying, "look what else you can do with this GPS"? Rather than saying, "Use your F*&king Feet!"

MGE

[Shiny Side Up]

but it strikes me as odd that people don't like looking outside so much when flying an aeroplane.

I don't understand it either, but a majority of the human race seems easily distracted by shiny bright objects, especially ones with video displays. Just observe how many of your fellow vehicle drivers who seem to be obsessed with what's occuring on a little 2" by 4" screen, rather than stuff like the other vehicles in close proximity to them also moving at speed. Keep in mind that the pilot population is drawn from this population.

[MikeGolfEcho]

but it strikes me as odd that people don't like looking outside so much when flying an aeroplane.

I don't understand it either, but a majority of the human race seems easily distracted by shiny bright objects, especially ones with video displays. Just observe how many of your fellow vehicle drivers who seem to be obsessed with what's occuring on a little 2" by 4" screen, rather than stuff like the other vehicles in close proximity to them also moving at speed. Keep in mind that the pilot population is drawn from this population.

Good point, I didn't think of the car GPS thing (as I don't have one of those either). So when people learn to drive a car are they being taught how to use the GPS and Bluetooth crap that comes with it? Or are they still being taught to drive along the road while not smashing into other motorists/perdestrians etc? I have to admit, I was totally distracted by shiny lights and stuff the first time I went night flying. It was SO cool

Ok, not the same thing, but I am genuinely curious about the flying school thing... are ab initio students being told how to use GPS systems before they can fly a plane properly?

[Shiny Side Up]

Ok, not the same thing, but I am genuinely curious about the flying school thing... are ab initio students being told how to use GPS systems before they can fly a plane properly?

Yes. Amongst other things.

[akoch]

I don't remember paying any attention to the GPS thing until it came to the x-country part of training. The first airplane that carried me up to 40 hours or so did not even have one (oh well, there was one with the text-only screen, not fun).

Interesting enough, one of the first things I read in the "From the Ground Up" was to look outside, and it was easy to do just that. I guess once you RTFM things are easier, seems a universal principle ever since the Icarus times.

As for the one wheel landings, it is actually a great idea. It was sitting in the back of my head for a while. I was not taught to do it during the PPL training - I learnt on the low-wing and we were taught the crab method. But I do remember it is in the aircraft POH for when you have a flat tire to land on the good one and keep rolling on it. I had a flat once, and I tried to do it and I don't think I was particularly successful. Frankly the aircraft did not care either. But point taken - something to work on and learn.

I don't particularly care if my airplane gets a scratch or two, for as long as no one hurt. It is just the part of the ab-initio x-wind landing training kicked in, when I was practicing 28-32 knot 90 degree gusts, and the upwind wing would come up in an instant when recovering from crabbing. So keeping the wings level during landing was drilled into me at the instinct level. Now I need to overcome it. Oh, and BTW - my instructor had the balls of the Colonel allowing me to practice with her those kinds of landings and make all kinds of mistakes one does trying it for the first time. I "almost" scraped the left wing, and I might even edit once more and remove the "almost" part.

[Shiny Side Up]

I don't remember paying any attention to the GPS thing until it came to the x-country part of training.

I'm starting to encounter students who can't find their way around the circuit without the aid of one. A few have been distressed because they can't tell their taxi speed without one.

A very disturbing trend. I really wish we could do basic training for everyone NORDO with nothing but airspeed, altimeter, compass, and ball.

[akoch]

Wow, it is amazing. I could't imagine it being that bad but I believe you. I do admit that finding the airports (and especially at night it is simply awesome!) as a whole lot easier for a low time guy like me with the GPS and I'm guilty of taking full advantage of it. Yes, I would wonder around more and perhaps busted an airspace or two once or twice by now if I did not have GPS. So I keep two of them in the cockpit now on any x-country

[akoch]

What's the big deal about the taxi speed? I heard it needs to be a bit below the Vr, so far that worked great

But seriously, what the .... does anyone look at the GPS speed for taxying???

[TC Aviator]

I agree with the Colonel. Having good instructors is great leverage towards having more safe and competent pilots.

I used to teach the "one-wheel landing and roll-out followed by a takeoff" exercise. The students get to understand why good stick and rudder skills are essential.

[jump154]

And I was worried because I don't know how to fully use the variosu GPS units installed in our aircraft! I can just about do DCT to somewhere in a pinch, rest I've never learned.

Having said that, I love the moving map on Foreflight as a backup to my manual map reading skills - mainly because I can zoom in and out so I can see detail clearly.

But then, I feel some tailwheel in my future...

[akoch]

I figure one gets a good grasp of the GPS once started the IFR flying. RNAV or GPS seems more attractive in the soup than the paper map reading skills.

[Cat Driver]

“We have instructors with the minimum amount of time required to get their CFI ticket, and they’re turning around and teaching other pilots to fly,” he says. “If these instructors don’t even fully grasp the fundamentals of stick-and-rudder flying, how can we possibly expect their students to?”

One of my thoughts about this problem in flight training was to offer a " How to fly an airplane " course to flight instructors when I finish my Cub.

The biggest problem is how can I charge these unfortunate people for something the system was supposed to teach them but did not.