Learning from mistakes - too much mistake

[PilotDAR]

Another thread touches on the topic of learning from mistakes, and the reality that you have to make mistakes to learn. Yes. However, the thought extended beyond the learning, to learning from a mistake in which an aircraft was damaged. Aside from a little wear and tear, like a lightly chirped tire, or worn brakes, damage to aircraft in the name of learning from mistakes should not be regarded as acceptable. If an aircraft was damaged, there was an increased risk of injury, as very simply, the aircraft was not under control.

We have to learn to be in control of the aircraft as the pilot, and have thought far enough ahead that we are not taking the plane into a phase of flight, or place, from which safe flight can be continued. If a pilot thinks they should be entitled to an "oh well..." after damaging a plane through failure to apply best effort, they should be handed coveralls, a drill and a rivet gun! (And yes, I have seen an instructor so tasked following their second land short accident!)

[mmartin1872]

after damaging a plane through failure to apply best effort, they should be handed coveralls, a drill and a rivet gun! (And yes, I have seen an instructor so tasked following their second land short accident!)

Might want to re-write this... I originally took it as you being condescending to mechanics, when I'm sure you meant "teach the guy a lesson by making him fix the airplane, that he broke." and you know how people will de-rail this thread if they get the chance to.

[PilotDAR]

Yes, I intend the passage to be understood as if the pilot is careless and breaks a plane, they should be invited to participate in repairing it, so they understand that a little damage to an aircraft can be very costly to repair - so use your skill to not damage the plane! Certainly no slight intended against the maintainers, anything but!

It is not reasonable that a pilot damages a plane, and that is passed off as a "learning experience" as they are provided with another one.

I have had three "learning experiences" in my career. So, I paid for a new window for a 172, I paid to have prop blades damage dressed out for a borrowed 182, and I used the drill and rivet gun on a 150 to repair some airframe damage I was responsible for. There was never an insurance claim, nor cost to the aircraft owner for the damage I had done.

I do insure my planes, and could perhaps make a claim for "the big one", but I would just be too embarrassed to make a claim for a "learning" mistake!

[photofly]

I think it's a great idea, but the AMO given the responsibility for the repair (and ab-initio training is almost exclusively done in commercial aircraft maintained by an AMO) probably can't allow anyone who isn't an employee to work on the aircraft. If they can, mostly I suspect the staff would view it as a double punishment to have to deal with the, er, miscreant, as well as fix the damage.

The most you can expect is the student to pay for the repair but that's actually tricky to enforce.

If it's the owner damaging his own aircraft during training he's going to have to foot the bill anyway.

[CpnCrunch]

I have a certain amount of sympathy for training accidents. What I don't have much sympathy for is cargo cult FTUisms that lead to accidents. I'm not sure if that is the case here, but we certainly hear about dubious FTU practices such as leaving the gear down during circuits and getting the student to put the flaps up on a touch+go in a retractable, which are just plain dumb.

[PilotDAR]

The point I'm trying to make is that the training environment should be held to a high standard of damaging/injurious mistakes being beyond what is considered "normal". Instructors must treat the plane as though it is their bread and butter tool, not a throw away replaceable vehicle like a beater car.

Whether the instructor is actually handed the drill and rivet gun is secondary to them understanding that the couple of wrinkles they just put in the forward fuselage with the nosewheel strike could require a $30,000 repair, and weeks out of service.

[photofly]

I do applaud the sentiment. Are there really flight schools who would fail to make known the significance of that sort of damage to the instructor concerned?

Out of interest, have we shifted emphasis from laying it at the door of the student (post one) to the instructor? I see the connection but it's certainly a shift in what we're asking for here.

[PilotDAR]

have we shifted emphasis from laying it at the door of the student (post one) to the instructor?

I have. Really, the student might plead ignorance - the instructor is the professional, and should not be able to make such a claim.

Are there really flight schools who would fail to make known the significance of that sort of damage to the instructor concerned?

I wonder. I certainly know that I have provided type training on advanced aircraft to "new" pilots, whose prior training environment failed to impart an awareness of the immense maintenance/repair cost which could result from the way they were handling the aircraft. Now that it was an RG or amphibian, the costs for wear and tear go way up form a 172.

And then we have tunnel vision pilots (which may include some instructors) who seem to realize after the fact that they really did know better than to try that, but back in in the moment - brain fade....

[photofly]

have we shifted emphasis from laying it at the door of the student (post one) to the instructor?

I have. Really, the student might plead ignorance - the instructor is the professional, and should not be able to make such a claim.

Let's consider for how long the instructor remains responsible for the student. A day? A month? A decade? For how long are we allowed to point the finger at someone else? Maybe the instructor's instructor should be the one considered at fault: if the instructor is a professional then his or her instructor must have been a professional professional! Or perhaps it was down to the instructor of the instructor of the instructor. Alternatively we can blame it all on Orville, Wilbur, and Glenn.

And then we have tunnel vision pilots (which may include some instructors) who seem to realize after the fact that they really did know better than to try that, but back in in the moment - brain fade....

Regrettably, that is how learning goes. The restrospectoscope is always perfect, and we all know afterwards what we should have done, back in the moment. Even you. The trick is to try not to repeat the error too many times.

[PilotDAR]

Regrettably, that is how learning goes. The restrospectoscope is always perfect, and we all know afterwards what we should have done, back in the moment. Even you. The trick is to try not to repeat the error too many times.

Yup, even me, I have done a lot of dumb things in planes, but the only damage I have ever done while flying was a 172 back window cracked. Even my restrospectoscope was imperfect, as I repeated a few errors, but I did not damage a plane, just startled myself. I suppose simple fear of wrecking a plane had me checking myself in a way which was effective. And, I was pretty happy with the considerable experience of my instructor, and subsequent mentors.

Let's consider for how long the instructor remains responsible for the student. A day? A month? A decade? For how are we allowed to point the finger at someone else? Maybe the instructor's instructor should be the one considered at fault:

For many skills, I think forever! The instructor needs to know that it is very possible that they could be the only formal source of a new PPL's skill and knowledge. Other than a flight test, that new pilot might buy a plane, and never fly with another instructor! . So that instructor must be thorough, and assure the right training is first and memorable!

[photofly]

Yup, even me, I have done a lot of dumb things in planes, but the only damage I have ever done while flying was a 172 back window cracked. Even my restrospectoscope was imperfect, as I repeated a few errors, but I did not damage a plane, just startled myself. I suppose simple fear of wrecking a plane had me checking myself in a way which was effective. And, I was pretty happy with the considerable experience of my instructor, and subsequent mentors.

I don't think you needed to feel bad. By your own argument it was all your instructor's fault that you made an error, and they should have been the one fixing the aircraft with the rivet gun, not you.

Other than a flight test, that new pilot might buy a plane, and never fly with another instructor!

Unlikely, if they want insurance. Unless they get themselves checked out by another non-instructor pilot, which in some circles is considered the superior option (but we don't want to open that discussion again). Finally let's note the 24 month recurrent training requirement under the CARs which in Canada is stupidly weak, but not so, for instance, in the USA.

[torquey401]

Really? You want a pilot who dings an aircraft to be given a drill and told to fix what he broke? Do you think he will fare better drilling out rivets?
I get the basic idea, but, um, no!

[CpnCrunch]

Really? You want a pilot who dings an aircraft to be given a drill and told to fix what he broke? Do you think he will fare better drilling out rivets?
I get the basic idea, but, um, no!

Maybe just get the pilot to sit and watch the AME all day while fixing the plane. Perhaps he can make himself useful and make the AME coffee, or pass the rivets.

[CreatingLift]

I have a certain amount of sympathy for training accidents. What I don't have much sympathy for is cargo cult FTUisms that lead to accidents. I'm not sure if that is the case here, but we certainly hear about dubious FTU practices such as leaving the gear down during circuits and getting the student to put the flaps up on a touch+go in a retractable, which are just plain dumb.

Is it dumb for the instructor to raise the flaps on the t&g ? What standard would you suggest?

[CpnCrunch]

Is it dumb for the instructor to raise the flaps on the t&g ?

No. I said it was dumb for the student to do it, as there is too much danger in raising the gear.

[trey kule]

the flaps up on a touch+go in a retractable, which are just plain dumb.

Really? Do you have some incident / accident stats to back up that perception, or is it just one of those things that seems to make sense to you?
Proceduceral shortcuts in training "for safety" sometimes result in a poorly trained pilot. And some planes do not perform take offs well, or sometimes not at all with max flap settings...can you see an issue with teaching the students not to retract the flaps to a takeoff setting.

[CpnCrunch]

Really? Do you have some incident / accident stats to back up that perception, or is it just one of those things that seems to make sense to you?

Proceduceral shortcuts in training "for safety" sometimes result in a poorly trained pilot. And some planes do not perform take offs well, or sometimes not at all with max flap settings...can you see an issue with teaching the students not to retract the flaps to a takeoff setting.

I never said the student shouldn't put the flaps up. I said they shouldn't do it on a touch+go. A touch+go is a "shortcut".

[trey kule]

Thats one, if it was the result of a touch and go.does that make it statistically significant?
And, it is a Baron. Lots of issues with the type and unitentional gear retraction on the ground. The flap and gear leavers are reversed from the usual side seen on most other light retractables.
There are a several insurance studies due to the number of incidents of this type on Beech products..at least the older ones. Possibly the newer ones are configured differently.
The problem is pilots who cant adapt to the change, and flip levers without thinking.
Proper training can avoid this...even on touch and goes.

[CpnCrunch]

Thats one, if it was the result of a touch and go

Yes, it was a touch+go, and not a student. It was the owner of an aircraft repair company in Calgary who was doing touch+goes.

.does that make it statistically significant?

No, but there have been quite a lot of similar accidents. I think BPF had one.

The problem is pilots who cant adapt to the change, and flip levers without thinking.
Proper training can avoid this...even on touch and goes.

Well, it's certainly an extra risk. Why would you ever need to do this?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Touch and goes are to teach PPL students how to land. By the time you get to a twin you should know how to land. IMO every landing in twin training should be to a full stop with the appropriate after landing check carried out when the aircraft has exited the runway.

A major aspect of good multi training is installing the discipline of efficiently executing the checks appropriate for phase of flight for a typical A to B flight. For a typical initial multi rating the student will do 4 or 5 landings. That should be plenty to figure it out.

If the student is still having significant issues with landing then I would suggest that there is a deficit in foundation flying skills and those should be fixed in a single engine training aircraft..

If the decision is made to continue in the twin then landing practice should be to a full stop with a taxi back, with the after landing and pre takeoff checks completed prior to take off. In other words the SOP correct way to operate the aircraft is followed on every flight.

edit: I should have mentioned that I had a student grab the wrong switch on a Multi Engine training flight and retract the gear instead of the flaps with the resulting damage severe enough to write off the airplane. I was not fast enough to stop them so that has obviously coloured my thoughts on this subject.

[DanWEC]

I agree. When I taught multi every landing was a full stop and backtrack. Never a TnG. Not only that but no cleanup would happen until either off the runway or during the reset after the backtrack.
During a tng a student will often be getting ahead of themselves and thinking about the go during the touchdown and not always focusing enough on the landing.

[trey kule]

Sometimes it is necessary , during training, to accept added risk in order to produce a better pilot at the end.
The instructional objective is to recognize the risk, determine the benefit, and try to minimize it.

As part of pilot training we could for example, try and discourage fast fingered rote memory movements under normal situations ( note normal ..it is to avoid the one off posts saying...but in this case...)
To teach new pilots not just to unthinkingly flip levers and switches, and proper procedures to do that.

Do that, and I dont think raising the flaps on a touch and go should present any real addtional risk. But if you can refer me to a study that says different, I will gladly stand corrected.
But one or two incidents, even if accompanied by pictures are not statistically valid..

And yes , I am picky. I spend many hours a week at my day job trying to pick through the myths and truisms of aviation to determine what is a statistical valid risk and how it should be dealt with.

Because somebody had a brain fart, or decided familiarity on type, or currency was not important and retracted the gear on the ground , it does not suddenly mean, as you posted, that it is a stupid idea to retract the flaps.
Lots of memory items to know to fly any plane, and with an instructor on board, should be no risk..IMO...

In any event, carry on...I am not in the mood to do some serious research on this particular issue.

Just questioning those who make bold statements about their resources .

[trey kule]

Just read the two previous posts to mine posted while I was typing.
Seem like excellent suggestions.
Although I think the stop and go might be impractical at some airports and the full backtrack a really inefficient use of expensive training time.
BPF 's suggestion seems to make a great deal of sense.

[Cat Driver]

Sometimes it is necessary , during training, to accept added risk in order tomproduce a better pilot at the end.
The instructional objective is to recognize the risk, determine the benefit, and try to minimize it.

As part of pilot training we could for example, try and discourage fast fingered rote memory movements under normal situations ( note normal ..it is to avoid the one off posts saying...but in this case...)
To teach new pilots not just to unthinkingly flip levers and switches, and proper procedures to do that.

Do that, and I dont think raising the flaps on a touch and go should present any real addtional risk. But if you can refer me to a study that says different, I will gladly stand corrected.
But one or two incidents, even if accompanied by pictures are not statistically valid..

And yes , I am picky. I spend many hours a week at my day job trying to pick through the myths and truisms of aviation to determine what is a statistical valid risk and how it should be dealt with.

Because somebody had a brain fart, or decided familiarity on type, or currency was not important and retracted the gear on the ground , it does not suddenly mean, as you posted, that it is a stupid idea to retract the flaps.
Lots of memory items to know to fly any plane, and with an instructor on board, should be no risk..IMO...

Exactly.

[CpnCrunch]

But if you can refer me to a study that says different, I will gladly stand corrected.
But one or two incidents, even if accompanied by pictures are not statistically valid..

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=ca


"Teach that, on landing, the pilot should not reconfigure the airplane until it comes to a complete stop. In almost half of the LGRAs the pilot inadvertently retracts the gear during the landing roll in the rush to clean up the airplane. Landing gear squat switches are supposed to prevent gear movement when there's weight on the wheels, but FAA reports show they don't always do so."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=ca

"In my opinion touch-and-go discipline should dictate: Prohibiting solo touch-and-go practice in all retractable-gear airplanes, except for such emergency training [emergency go-around maneuver]."

(for some reason AOPA's website is broken, and if you click on any direct links it just redirects to the homepage).