Flight Instructors

[Chuck Ellsworth]

With a bit of googling on the subject of flying around pylons in flight training in the USA you can find a lot of interesting reading on the subject.

On my last flight test in the USA for the commercial gyroplane pilot license the wind was about twenty knots and turbulent as hell, it actually was quite difficult maintaining the ground track and the FAA flight test examiner was a real sadist because he made me do several of them.

Back to my origional question, why does T.C. not require them?

[Colonel Sanders]

In Canada, Illusions Created By Drift is a required
exercise (#20) for PPL and CPL but because it's
not a flight test item, it doesn't get taught very
well, if at all.

Personally, I think it's one of the greatest excuses
for low flying ever invented

Also, it allows me to sneak in more discussion
about the rudder:

skids (ball outside of turn) are bad
slips (ball inside of turn) are good.

I know. I must try to not make things too complicated.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

If you really want to see how flexible your students mind is reading visual clues just put a string outside on the windshield of a twin engine airplane and when the student is slipping or skidding ask them to correct it by reference to both the ball and the string.......a real multi tasking thought processing exercise.

[Beefitarian]

That and flying under a bridge should be flight test items.

If I were king you'd get 5 chances to pass your ppl flight test by flying under a ribbon.
If you fail all 5, then you would have to make it under a real bridge. That should cull the heard. P/K

[Instructor_Mike]

I'm usually teach my students at 3rd-4th flight to keep the ball in the center while rolling back and forth about 30 degrees and flying more/less level. Sometimes I step them up and make them do it in a climb but I use it more as an exercise to make sure they don't ignore rudder during attitude changes.

As I become more experienced as an instructor and noticing trends from my students, I've been known to cover up the instruments a lot more too. When I teach S+L flight, I give them control and cover the instruments once they use the marker to give themselves a horizon reference on the windscreen. The mark doesn't stay on long but it helps them visualize and look up for the first few minutes.

I had one student that had a rough time with A/S chasing after the power is back on downwind so I "failed" her ASI with a sticky note. She got it figured out.

One of these days, I'd like to go up with an old crusty taildragger or aerobatic vet and have him really teach me a thing or 2.

[Shiny Side Up]

I'm usually teach my students at 3rd-4th flight to keep the ball in the center

I hate to say it, but this should be flight 1: Attitudes and movements, or as my old instructor used to call it: The three whores. Not as politically correct I supposed, but no one ever forgot. Well at least I didn't.

[Instructor_Mike]

I'm usually teach my students at 3rd-4th flight to keep the ball in the center

I hate to say it, but this should be flight 1: Attitudes and movements, or as my old instructor used to call it: The three whores. Not as politically correct I supposed, but no one ever forgot. Well at least I didn't.

Yeah, maybe poorly worded, I'm talking about the rolling exercise on third flight (including the discovery). Second flight is just push/pull learn what everything does nice simple and slow (movements and attitudes as Mike Spence would teach it RIP). I show them the ball and the rudder and teach them to look outside at the horizon for cruise attitude/straight and level. My class 1 had me induce yaw on the pedal then have the student step on the ball (I ease out gently) and that is on for A&M. By the third flight (second after discovery) they usually are a little more comfortable and can exercise hands and feet together. That's my personal experience anyway.

I've noticed a significant increase in coordination for my students since doing it. In fact many my students are better at it than I am since I wasn't taught that exercise until a year ago.

[digits_]

2) falling leaf (stay in the stall)

[...]

I would dearly love for some of those young instructors
to respond here, and tell me what I am doing wrong.

Well, regarding nr 2, I used to be one of them. The reason, according to me, is the following: many of these instructors were also taking CPL / ATPL theory lessons. The chapter about deep stall was, at least at my flying school, very important. It was stressed that deep stall == you die. What was not stressed, is the fact that it does (in general) not apply to light aircraft.

Next, there were the practical cpl lessons in which I needed to fly a 'complex' aircraft. During the stall lessons, the instructor was always afraid of introducing a secondary stall. This caused him to become nervous when the stall warning went off, and him requesting an immediate recovery. Thus learning the student (aka me): staying in the stall == dangerous !

Later, I flew with an other instructor who showed me what the light aircraft could really do (let say he was my 'Colonel Sanders' - he was a real retired airforce colonel by the way-) which opened my eyes. And yes, the first lesson I thought he took unnecessary risks. The 3rd lesson, I was allegedly taking them myself.

Oh, and another thing I was shocked at: after 300 flying hours, it was my Flight Instructor examiner who finally thought me the good way to use the rudder in coordinated turns. It took 5 minutes. I guess it just never came up in all the previous courses that I was doing something wrong. Nobody paid attention


Note: this was in a European school, not a Canadian one, but I guess there aren't that many differences.

[Colonel Sanders]

It was stressed that deep stall == you die

Sigh.

During the stall lessons, the instructor was always afraid of introducing a secondary stall

FWIW in the last 40 years, I have only ever flown TWO
aircraft with remotely interesting secondary stall
characteristics: P-51D and Glasair III, both of which
have NLF wings. Co-incidence?

Later, I flew with an other instructor who showed me what the light aircraft could really do (he was a real retired airforce colonel by the way-) which opened my eyes. And yes, the first lesson I thought he took unnecessary risks. The 3rd lesson, I was allegedly taking them myself.

it was my Flight Instructor examiner who finally thought me the good way to use the rudder in coordinated turns. It took 5 minutes

Oh my god. This is so wrong. Examiners are NOT supposed
to be giving flight instruction, but as extremely experienced
instructors sometimes they can't help but fix stuff which
they see is obviously broken.

Note that a highly experienced pilot and instructor took 5
minutes to teach you want you hadn't been taught in the
hundreds of hours of dual instruction previous to this.

this was in a European school

Hey, we're at least as screwed up over here, trust me.

PS There are some really, really good European
stick & rudder pilots, like this couple:



They're dead now, of course - belly-to-belly hammerhead -
but they were really good.

[FenderManDan]

<offtopic>
That plane Mudry CAP 10 seems capable for the about same price as C-172. I would rather fly this than cessna. I see we have C-FCXX as the only one in Canada.

Does anybody have any more info on them?
Are they pain to import?
</offtopic>

<ontopic>
I was thought originally as well that secondary stalls == trouble/farm in the sky/smell the flowers from the bottom/

And then I went to a little trip and another instructor showed me that secondary stalls are really no big deal. I am still not comfortable 100%, I must admit when the wing drops, but few more training hours like this and that will be fixed.
</ontopic>

[Colonel Sanders]

Careful on the Cap 10b. It has wing spar problems.

On the IAC mailing list, people have said in the past
that it shouldn't do any aerobatics, let alone snap rolls!

For doing "old man" aerobatics (eg loops and rolls and
combinations only) I would look at a shiny RV-5/6/7/8.
As well, you must be very careful of it's spar, which
appears to me to be constructed of tinfoil. People have
ripped wings off them in the past. A guy two hangars
down from me died in one when he flew it too hard.

It all depends what kind of acro you want to do. If you
want to thrash something, get a single-seat Pitts or a
Yak-55M. Both are incredible airplanes which will teach
you an enormous amount without costing the earth.

Edit -- what is all this FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt)
that people are selling now, about Secondary stalls? I
wish more people would teach the "falling leaf" - pull the
control column all the way back, and hold it there,
walking the airplane down with rudders, fully stalled
in a level pitch attitude. Is that so hard?

Less product in the hair! More work with your feet!

[treehugger]

Ok.. I'll bite:
As per original post... why are you asking 'young instructors with too much hair product' for advanced training. Nowhere in the syllabus for ppl or cpl is learning to roll around a point or secondary stall mentioned. You learn how to enter and recover from a power off/on stall. and how to enter,fly and recover from slow flight. Landing on one main wheel during x-wind landing is the only way to land is it not? Landing on one main wheel during non x-wind is about as handy a skill as popping a wheelie down a taxiway. Challenging an instructor is constructive but stereotyping, targeting then confusing a green class 4 so you can belittle them isn't really doing anyone any favours.
Now, that being said, I do agree that working on these skills is not only safe but promotes safety! If there's ever a need to be positive on the controls it's during a secondary stall or any maneuver in slow flight. It's been a while since I was a 20something class 4 with too much gel in my hair but I do remember that your goal was getting folks to flight test standard. Not teaching a 45hr ppl student to run before they walk. If you want to do advanced work talk to the CFI and have him/her point you to the only instructor on staff with white hair and no tie.

[Colonel Sanders]

I'm not sure when learning to use the rudder
became "advanced training". As a cranky old
guy, I don't see it as being optional, really.

Without the rudder, taking off, slow flight,
stalls, spins and crosswind landings are going
to be poorly performed.

Some or all of those may appear on a flight test.

http://www.pittspecials.com/articles/AdverseYaw.htm

A good example is a vanilla takeoff – no crosswind, lots of runway. The nose in a prop single will typically yaw left for about a millions reasons, none of which matter very much. What matters is that people learn the lessons of slow flight and use right rudder to bring the nose right.

Unfortunately for many students, who have spent decades driving a car, the learning factor of primacy has taught them that when they want the nose of a vehicle to go right, they spin the steering wheel to the right.

And, that’s what they do on takeoff, instead of using right rudder. They crank the control column to the right, which lowers the left aileron into the high pressure beneath the wing. The adverse yaw produced pulls the nose MORE to the left, so they crank the control column to the right even more, which produces even more adverse yaw, which pulls the nose left even more. Sigh.

[Cat Driver]

Colonel this train has been to far off the rails to get it back now, they don't grasp the simple fact that most of them get instructors ratings before they learn how to properly control an aircraft them selves.

Landing on one main wheel during non x-wind is about as handy a skill as popping a wheelie down a taxiway. Challenging an instructor is constructive but stereotyping, targeting then confusing a green class 4 so you can belittle them isn't really doing anyone any favours.

The above quote is proof positive that beyond doubt this poster sees nothing wrong with a class 4 not being able to properly control an airplane..........

I rest my case

[CpnCrunch]

So out of curiosity, how do you land on one main-wheel when there's no crosswind and keep the plane aligned with the runway? Normally if you apply too much aileron you have to compensate with opposite rudder and you end up landing in a crab. There's a video on youtube of someone doing this in a decathlon, but even he says "It's not the best for the tires because the one wheel that touches down is not aligned with the runway".

[treehugger]

Cat Driver, I didn't realize you had a case. I've never flown a reverse immelman, aileron roll or loop... does that mean I was unqualified to teach ppl and cpl? I do agree with CS, flying in a slow, or slightly above, flight condition or holding a secondary stall does require positive use of the controls... including the rudders. Often these skills (secondary stall, dutch roll (misnamed) in the toolbox can be the breakthrough exercise that help a student identify correct control who would otherwise fly sloppy basic maneuvers.

[Cat Driver]

Often these skills (secondary stall, dutch roll (misnamed) in the toolbox can be the breakthrough exercise that help a student identify correct control who would otherwise fly sloppy basic maneuvers.

These are basic airplane handling exercises, and as such it would be expected that any pilot with a flight instructors rating would consider them to be basic.....as far as a tool box goes I don't carry one around with me.

You wrote this.

Landing on one main wheel during non x-wind is about as handy a skill as popping a wheelie down a taxiway. Challenging an instructor is constructive but stereotyping, targeting then confusing a green class 4 so you can belittle them isn't really doing anyone any favours.

My comment was the above exercise is also basic airplane handling skills and is very useful in teaching a student the effectiveness of controls. It is not some black magic exercise and should be taught to every new PPL student.

Landing on one main wheel during non x-wind is about as handy a skill as popping a wheelie down a taxiway.

Really? Not in my opinion. In my opinion it is teaching basic airplane handling skills.

[Beefitarian]

Really? Not in my opinion. In my opinion it is teaching basic airplane handling skills.

That's not a bad way to think but you're going to need a decent amount of hours before you're at the point of really owning some of those moves. Once you're near 800 hours unless you're a rare career instructor you probably will be moving on to the next phase of your career.

Later when you retire from other types of flying you've probably had enough and can't stomach hopping in a 172 with me. You either are healthy enough to make better money or you just want to relax and complain. Shoot I just want to relax and complain and I have no marketable skills from flying for a living.

[Cat Driver]

That's not a bad way to think but you're going to need a decent amount of hours before you're at the point of really owning some of those moves.

Running down the runway on one wheel is a very easy exercise and can be taught in a short period of time....about one hour of touch and goes should be sufficient for the average student.

Once you're near 800 hours unless you're a rare career instructor you probably will be moving on to the next phase of your career.

And that is why we are having this discussion........the industry has it backwards when the teachers are still students.

[Colonel Sanders]

how do you land on one main-wheel when there's no crosswind and keep the plane aligned with the runway?

Easy. Slip right before touchdown. After touchdown,
full aileron over, a touch of power to maintain airspeed
and rudder as required.

It doesn't hurt anything. Especially compared to student
pilot landings.

Landing on one main wheel during non x-wind is about as handy a skill as popping a wheelie down a taxiway

Wrong. It's a very handy skill. It means that you won't have
any problem controlling an airplane during a crosswind landing.

These pilots probably think the same as you, about developing
fundamental aircraft handling skills:



And it surely shows. Remember: less product in the hair, more
feet on the rudder pedals.

[Shiny Side Up]

If I may, I'd have to say doing one wheel touch and goes is quite a bit easier in the taildragger since you can be at a lower angle of attack while doing so. That's probably just me though.

edit:

And it surely shows. Remember: less product in the hair, more
feet on the rudder pedals.

I'm going to improve
your wise man's groove
the tag line new
just for you

Less product in the hair, work those feet while in the air.

[Colonel Sanders]

I honestly don't notice any difference, doing a one-wheel
touchdown in a nosewheel aircraft. All same same.

[Shiny Side Up]

Just a touch down, no. The alternating wheels trick yes, but only somewhat.

[Beefitarian]

If I flew more often than every 50 days or so maybe I'd be agreeing more. I don't right now.

[treehugger]

The commentator in your video said it best, "he's hotdoggin'". Unless hotdoggin' is a new exercise on the flight test I fail to see how teaching a 10,45 or 100hr ppl/cpl a one wheel landing is an effective use of of the candidates money. You, by all accounts, are an effective teacher and dare I say, probably have a toolbox* full of unconventional methods to illustrate 'basic' control. Just as demonstrating rudder use in slow flight reinforces rudder use in straight and level, climbs, descents and turns. Personally, I've always found maintaining direction with rudders and an extended centerline with aileron, attitude is airspeed and power is altitude to be an effective way to bring my students to flight test standard for any landing. If, as a new class 4, I spent an hour teaching my 10hr student motoring down the runway on one wheel my CFI would've sh1t a sideways brick looking out the window.
Furthermore, I certainly don't need you to validate my flying or teaching ability... I've had numerous dftes, pilot examiners, class 1s and CFIs do that for me. That being said, I'm willing to learn but you should expect to be challenged in return.
The topic was on approaching a new class 4, challenging them on 3 exercises, one of which is controversial,IMHO, in training someone for a ppl or cpl...

*metaphor