"FTU'isms"

[trey kule]

As usual, we get mixed up and confuse crew operations with single pilot , piston engine, small aircraft...This is about FTU's.

Single pilot....yep,,,,good idea,,,yell out airspeed alive . keeps you pax in the loop and shows them you are on the ball.. Though if you really want to impress them you would tweet it when it happens.

The problem at the FTUs is that to many instructors are airline wannabees, and are more intersted in sharing their vision of what they think happens in an airliner than teaching the basics..
You glance down and check the asi, oil press, and other applicable guages ,,,smart idea..sharing the experience when you are single pilot...bad idea.. As an instructor telling students to share the experience verbally...also a bad idea.

FTU's have pretty much always been this way,though with the influx of college trained instructors the last few years there seems to be a significant shift away from teaching the basics and more on procedural stuff. A perfect pax, briefing, restart procedure, may day call......but cant make the field in a forced approach.. The knowledge of more areodynamic theory than a college professuer, but cant do a spin. ....

The biggest FTU problem I see is the improper use (or inappropriate use) of checklists. 47 page checklist to to start and taxi a cherokee..And the instructor, of course never uses one at all..
They become a bit of a joke..Then our new pilots graduate from the FTU and get in a plane where a checklist has a bit more use than as a sun visor, and they have a real difficult time adapting..

I've seen that states the actual proper procedure for leaning for taxi on the checklist

perfect example...the leaning procedure for taxiing has no place on a checklist...

[Shiny Side Up]

The chief problem with most of the FTUisms is that while they might be valid to do in the context of the FTU, the average person should have the capability to determine what should stay there. Some things like the Colonel's mixture issues are real ignorance on the part of instructors, but other things like the airspeed call, run up and walkaround repeated redundancy, has a valid use while training, but don't outside of training.

For example, a little while ago when I managed to actually get some dual from another instructor, he told me he always wanted me to call out the airspeed before I initiated a manuever. He had a hard time seeing it from the back seat after all and wanted to get the point across that I needed to be mindful of it. Understandable. That said though, when I did the same things by myself, I dispensed with it (but still was mindful to check - the undelying point). Now I'm not that clever of a fellow, but I didn't need to be told when to and when not to, I somehow figured that out on my own. Lots of people don't though. Just like I've shocked a few people by not doing a full walkaround on occasion or dispensed with using a checklist in many cases.

Ideally most student should be savy enough to realise what things have been done for the benefit of their training and can be used with discretion later, and so should most instructors be able to figure this out too, but I have ceased to assume that people will be above and beyond this low bar that is set for them. Most people don't want to think for themsleves and will avoid it at every opportunity.

[Colonel Sanders]

Single pilot....yep,,,,good idea,,,yell out airspeed alive

Too funny. My main problem with all this wanna-be
crap is that it has the low-time pilots looking inside
the cockpit as they roll down the runway, faster and
faster.

In addition to the airspeed, they can check the manifold
pressure, RPM, oil pressure, oil temperature, CHT - for
all cylinders - EGT - again, for all cylinders - and also the
volts and amps and suction, mechanical fuel pressure
for a spread vs fuel totalizer fuel flow, indicating a plugged
fuel injector ... during the takeoff roll.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Lotro]

I still call out airspeed alive. I don't yell it out, but I'll say it. It's one part muscle memory and one part telling myself that I checked and did what I was supposed to do. I call it to myself again once I've reached the speed I intend to rotate at.

I guess that makes me a bad pilot?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Maybe a little overkill bit nothing wrong with some primacy for those intending on continuing to a 705 environment.

Now we are into " primacy "

Dear God.

[YYZSaabGuy]

Maybe a little overkill bit nothing wrong with some primacy for those intending on continuing to a 705 environment.

Now we are into " primacy "

Dear God.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primacy Easy, there, .: it's only three syllables. You can do it.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Too funny. My main problem with all this wanna-be
crap is that it has the low-time pilots looking inside
the cockpit as they roll down the runway, faster and
faster.

Jeeses Colonel, when are you going to get with the program.

It is the learning factor of readiness, the instructors are programming them so they will not have difficulty with checking the airspeed indicator during the climb....you know how that goes.....whoops the airspeed is a bit low so must lower the nose.....pause look again, whoops the airspeed is a bit high so better raise the nose....rince and repeat during the climb.

Gotta teach e'm correct.

In addition to the airspeed, they can check the manifold
pressure, RPM, oil pressure, oil temperature, CHT - for
all cylinders - EGT - again, for all cylinders - and also the
volts and amps and suction, mechanical fuel pressure
for a spread vs fuel totalizer fuel flow, indicating a plugged
fuel injector ... during the takeoff roll.

What could possibly go wrong?

Their make believe other crew member had suddenly died during the past few seconds?

[North Shore]

^ Well, older pilots, you get them worked up, blood pressure rises, and the big jammer happens. Incapacitation..

[YYZSaabGuy]

^ Well, older pilots, you get them worked up, blood pressure rises, and the big jammer happens. Incapacitation..

Good point. My situational awareness needs work. ., for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_management
http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/hypertension/
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/relaxa ... ue/SR00007

[Siddley Hawker]

Single pilot....yep,,,,good idea,,,yell out airspeed alive

Too funny. My main problem with all this wanna-be
crap is that it has the low-time pilots looking inside
the cockpit as they roll down the runway, faster and
faster.

In addition to the airspeed, they can check the manifold
pressure, RPM, oil pressure, oil temperature, CHT - for
all cylinders - EGT - again, for all cylinders - and also the
volts and amps and suction, mechanical fuel pressure
for a spread vs fuel totalizer fuel flow, indicating a plugged
fuel injector ... during the takeoff roll.

What could possibly go wrong?

You forgot answering the cell phone.

[Lurch]

In an attempt to get us back on the rails.

Checklist that have you continue to check items that you haven't touched since the run-up/start. Pre-landing checks that have you check that the Master is still on and the Mags are on Both, I would hope that everybody is smart enough to notice right away if either of those magically get turned off. I know of one flight schools checklist that has you check that the fuel pumps are turned off 6 times, what makes it stupid is at no time does the checklist have you turn them on except in an emergency.

Another huge pain in the butt that I'm noticing more and more, is that they are turning everything on while sitting in the run-up bay, Transponder and every single light bulb the airplane has. I love coming into land and not only am I being annoyed by the screaming "Traffic" but I also get to be blinded by their strobes, taxi, and landing light while they sit at the hold line. Leave that crap off until you cross the hold line.

Lurch

[Chuck Ellsworth]

This mindless monkey read monkey do method of operating airplanes is not new, i remember doing an instrument recheck ride with one of Transoprts finest when I had a Piper Geronimo in my flight school fleet.

During the pre takeoff check list I got to pitot heat on.

I verbally said not required and left it off.

The weather was sky clear and around thirty degrees C.

Anyhow after the ride he marked me down for not turning on the pitot heat, I told him I would not accept being marked down for using common sense it got real ugly real quick so I told him I was going to request another ride with an inspector that had a brain.

Bottom line was rather than have me file a formal complaint with T.C. he re marked my ride with no penalty for not turning on the pitot heat.

[Big Pistons Forever]

IMO the most important, but least practiced "check" during the takeoff roll in FTO (fixed pitched prop) trainers is to ensure the engine is within the published correct static RPM as soon as full throttle has been applied.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

So when you say 'airspeed alive' you are waiting for a verbal response? Usually it is lack of movement or slumping over that is the first clue of incapacitation..... assuming something like that would happen unexpectedly in the takeoff roll. Honestly, that sounds like runaway SOPs.

Perhaps the pilot is having a stroke or seizure and isn't "slumped over." We can also lock our seatbelts tight, so even if you did have a heart attack, you wouldn't slump over. Each crew-member can reach the other's seatbelt lock to do just this to prevent an incapacitated person from slouching into the controls. My theory is that this exact situation did occur once and now it is the SOP's. This situation was practiced in one of my SIM sessions where the other pilot "died" on me. His seatbelt was already locked and his head was bowed low, but with all my concentration on flying the plane on T.O. I didn't see it out of the corner of my eye. Once I stopped the plane and looked at him, it was obvious he was "dead." If it weren't for the 70 KTS challenge and response call, I would have taken off with a dead co-pilot!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

If it weren't for the 70 KTS challenge and response call, I would have taken off with a dead co-pilot!

Are you saying everyone else on board would have died because there was no one that could have flown the airplane?.... Oh sorry I forgot you were in a sim.

Does your SOP's have you call out a speed just prior to touch down in case the pilot landing is dead?

[Morav]

I think the point here is, if you are afraid to fly a light trainer without an airspeed indicator you probably shouldn't be flying at all.

[Morav]

Planes are built to fly. If your captain is incapcitated, take it for a circuit. I have to agree with CAT Driver. What I think is dangerours is getting into the habit of doing weak rejected takeoffs for minor issues. Because one day you'll be close to V1 on a short runway in a heavy plane, and if you don't slam those passengers heads into the seat infront of them, you'll end up going off the end of the runway.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

[quote=". ."]Does your SOP's have you call out a speed just prior to touch down in case the pilot landing is dead?/quote]
No, and why would it? I can land the aircraft perfectly fine without the other pilot. The only stuff the pilot not flying does is lower the gear and flaps and puts the props up, then reads the checklist. I can do those things by myself if need be.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

You have to see this stuff from my perspective DHC-1 Jockey, this whole SOP thing in small airplanes has been turned into black magic, the truth is flying an airplane is no more difficult than operating most machinery.....

.....but the training industry makes money on turning it into black magic.

And a lot of pilots believe that B.S.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

I don't disagree with you .. Just trying to explain why it might be done the way it is. I look back on my training and the training I did of others and can see lots of things that I would change. As I think I said in my first post, I was taught a certain way and as a result trained my students the same way. It's just the only way I knew how. If I ever again teach a new pilot, it'll be different than the way I was taught.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

It's just the only way I knew how. If I ever again teach a new pilot, it'll be different than the way I was taught.

That is great, and normal progress as time passes.

Now if only the training industry would pay more maybe the quality of instruction would evolve with the industry.

[trey kule]

If it weren't for the 70 KTS challenge and response call, I would have taken off with a dead co-pilot!

And your point being?

It is this kind of fantasy horse feather creeping into training..How many times in the millions and millions of take offs over the years do you think this has happened? Sim time is expensive.
I am not arguing the challange response method , but lets have some common sense here.
Perhaps it would be better if they had failed an airspeed indicator, which just might actually happen ( four times in my career) and had you recognize it.. But a dead FO!...that is not a big deal unless the flight is over 8 hours, and even then if you turn the cockpit heat down real low they wont start to smell. Just eat their meals and do a lot of complaing about upgrades, pay , time off, respect so the CVR does not show anything other than normal conversation.

On second thought, perhaps we should be considering it as a checklist item....FO alive...check..
Maybe let Cessna know so they can put it in their checklists for the flight colleges.

[flyinthebug]

The only way we will effect any change on the current (and past) instructing in our industry, is to make being an instructor more than a stepping stone position. Once you`ve graduated from flight school you should be sent NORTH and fly a C180/185/206 on floats for 2 seasons, before ever dreaming of becoming a Flight Instructor. The main problem has been stated clearly here...instructors tend to teach what they "believe" happens on the flight deck of a 767 based on what they saw in the movies. They have no real life flying experience to draw from. Do we blame the instructor or the industry for that?

If we made instructor positions have minimums like most float ops, multi ops etc etc etc, we would have better quality instructors. They would have tasted real world flying and not just SKC conditions and within 25 NM of an aerodrome.

If were going to change the FTUism`s we have to isolate the problem. The problem is far less complex than some believe it to be. Put a 750-1000 TT hour minimum on ALL instructing positions, pay them fairly, and watch how fast the level of flight instruction changes in Canada. If all instructors had at least 2 seasons on floats or 1-2 years in the right seat of a PA31-350/King Air/Metro etc, the level of flight training would increase dramatically.

This will never happen though as FTU`s are usually crying poor and suggest that 10$ extra an hour to the instructors will put them out of business. Of course this is absolute bull s*it but most FTU`s camp on it.

The only way things will change for the better is when a pilot going through flight school says to him/herself...damn, I want to be a career instructor and become a Class 1 one day and a CFI for a good school. If those positions paid fairly, it would attract a certain percentage of grads. Wouldnt it be cool to go up north to fly a C185, with the end game becoming the CFI at XXX Flying School! The money isnt there though, so neither is the limited interest.

For me it would have been ideal. I was older when I started flying commercially and had 3 small children... so being home every night as an instructor would have been ideal for my lifestyle. I just couldnt afford to feed my family on a Class 4 wage (or class 2 for that matter) and I was too many years away from a CFI position that finally starts to pay a liveable wage. For me, it would have been nice to know I would have only had to be away from (north) my family for 2 years then I could have started instructing and being home every night. If it would have attracted me early in my career, it means others have thought about it too. Sadly though, the dream dies when you look at the CRAP wages paid to an average instructor. My hats off to those that have endured and become career instructors.

I do sincerely believe that unless we do something like this to start attracting experienced pilots into instructing, nothing is going to change, but only get even worse with more and more advancement in technology. Less and less focus on flying and more on what the computer can do in a glass cockpit.

Maybe this is a subject the new College can address?

[Beefitarian]

Single pilot....yep,,,,good idea,,,yell out airspeed alive . keeps you pax in the loop and shows them you are on the ball.. Though if you really want to impress them you would tweet it when it happens.

Agreed but I'm thinking of switching to, "No mud daubers!" Or, "Pitot clear." instead to avoid bothering any real pilots onboard.
Then to announce decent I figure making a worried face and yelling, "We're going down!" should get the message out. Thoughts?

[costermonger]

The only way things will change for the better is when a pilot going through flight school says to him/herself...damn, I want to be a career instructor and become a Class 1 one day and a CFI for a good school. If those positions paid fairly, it would attract a certain percentage of grads. Wouldnt it be cool to go up north to fly a C185, with the end game becoming the CFI at XXX Flying School! The money isnt there though, so neither is the limited interest.

I'm just not sure there are a ton of people who actually want to teach more than they want to fly something sexier than a trainer. Attracting more experienced pilots into instructing could help this, maybe, but while it's something that's acting as a stepping stone for most of the people who do it, paying more isn't going to be enough to keep them. It seems to keep them around longer - and that's certainly worth something - but if they got into the industry because they wanted to fly for an airline, eventually they're probably going to leave to go do that.

Is a bigger barrier to entry and better compensation enough to significantly increase the number of pilots who actually want to teach for the sake of teaching? Does that question actually matter if you keep people longer and get a better training product anyway?