DME arcs - why the bad rap?

[KennyFlys]

Well, I've survived many a magenta line so far...

I do agree that one should be able to survive when one or two failures change your navigation capabilities and I'm pretty sure I can still follow a needle when necessary.

But what do you think of the arc tracking method I mentioned? It doesn't rely on any colored lines.

That's certainly a viable method. Jesse went around on this a bit last night. Basically, if the pilot is good enough to fly within their abilities and maintain flight within the protected area, great... with one caveat. Be certain of where the inbound course is from the arc and capable of anticipating it with a smooth, coordinated turn.

Unfortunately, between new IR students and others who have come to me for proficiency issues, that's far from the case. So, I insist on returning to the tried and true method of being certain where they are along the arc; preparing for when to make the turn. Many can't gage well where they are on arcs that exist between 7 and 35 DME and 40 degrees or more.

 

[jesse]

I would normally set the OBS on the #2 nav to indicate a lead in radial if available and the #1 set to show the final course guidance.

Unlike the turn&twist this works even if the DME ground station isn't a VOR although I don't know if those are ever used for a published arc. In any case it leaves your hands free to deal with other stuff (like belatedly reviewing the approach plate or changing com freqs).

Lance, I've used your arc tracking method with and without a magenta line and it works fine for me.

+1. No reason to give yourself more workload by messing with the instruments constantly.

 

[Trapper John]

If I were unsure of my ability to fly whatever approach was needed at my planned destination and/or lacked the ability to get there sans GPS I'd go for 'a' as well if it were available. But I can certainly see the potential that no such options exist. Most of the places I go don't have the option of vectors to final on any approach and in many cases the nearest ILS is a fair distance away. Couple the GPS outage with minimal radar low altitude radar coverage and insufficient fuel to make a diversion to somewhere that vectors to an ILS exist and you have a situation where "flying the needles" will be the best choice.

You make a good point in that choice "a" may not be available. Easy to forget that in the flatlands here.

That said, I don't agree with Ken that there are many pilots flying IFR who are gonna become a statistic just because their magenta lines dissapear.

So I guess the rumor that the next G1000 software update automatically notifies next of kin upon system failure is false?


Trapper John

 

[KennyFlys]

I think the key is to be able to use everything available in the airplane correctly.

That's my entire point.

It's certainly not what I encountered two weeks ago last night. If this guy had been alone and in IMC as he was wishing, he would have killed himself. I'm absolutely certain of this.

At one point, he told me, "I have no idea what my situational awareness is." This was followed a short time later when he aggressively crossed the localizer of 35R and headed for 35L when both I and the controller was telling him to get a correction in there. It didn't help he was crossing the FAF at 145 in an A36. Fly too fast and mistakes happen even faster.

This guy later admitted he was entirely too GPS dependent. Do you really think there are there are that few out there flying this way? He held an IR since 1991 and had only remained current with the required approaches through the years, nothing more. He's far from the only pilot simply staying current. I encountered another yesterday who wanted to brush up on approaches since he's headed for his CFI initial.

 

[Everskyward]

Kenny, pilots have sucessfully killed themselves since way before GPS or moving maps were ever in a single airplane. There were woefully non-current pilots back then too. I don't think you can blame the technology. I also don't think you are doing anyone any favors by talking about the "magenta line of death" or whatever you called it. You're only going to give people a phobia about it. There are enough people out there with technology phobia or autopilot phobia. These things are only tools and people should not be reluctant to use them.

 

[KennyFlys]

Kenny, pilots have sucessfully killed themselves since way before GPS or moving maps were ever in a single airplane. There were woefully non-current pilots back then too. I don't think you can blame the technology. I also don't think you are doing anyone any favors by talking about the "magenta line of death" or whatever you called it. You're only going to give people a phobia about it. There are enough people out there with technology phobia or autopilot phobia. These things are only tools and people should not be reluctant to use them.

I don't want anyone to be reluctant to use technology. But, I do want them to be proficient. The reason for my statement is due to those who become GPS dependent, particularly with coupled approaches.

They become so dependant on that resulting magenta line showing them where to fly to they don't have a clue how to find the same courses and fixes on needles alone. Along comes a time they have a problem with the GPS or they load the approach wrong in the GPS. Or, the autopilot is inoperative. Something has happen that changes from business as usual and they aren't prepared.

I don't want to scare folks from technology. Technology of GPS, particularly WAAS is a wonderful thing as it continues to provide precision approaches to more and more airports. But, I do want to convince folks they need to be proficient on all means of navigation on board the plane they fly. In the end, it's the lack of proficiency that will kill the pilot. I've seen the process leading that direction.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Kenny, pilots have sucessfully killed themselves since way before GPS or moving maps were ever in a single airplane. There were woefully non-current pilots back then too. I don't think you can blame the technology. I also don't think you are doing anyone any favors by talking about the "magenta line of death" or whatever you called it. You're only going to give people a phobia about it. There are enough people out there with technology phobia or autopilot phobia. These things are only tools and people should not be reluctant to use them.

Very true - I can kind of see Kenny's point in this case though, because for many people it seems like the GPS comes with a free lobotomy. They get so used to using the GPS that their brain is not capable of making that picture in their head, where it needs to be. While there always have been and always will be stupid pilots, the GPS keeps them alive long enough to get their situational awareness skills to REALLY atrophy, and when the magenta line goes away, they're very ill-prepared to deal with it.

For some, though, the magenta line will never fail, and they'll live long enough to die of natural causes. I don't think Kenny is saying to get rid of GPS, just to practice without it.

 

[jmaynard]

For some, though, the magenta line will never fail, and they'll live long enough to die of natural causes. I don't think Kenny is saying to get rid of GPS, just to practice without it.

The magenta line went away in the Zodiac a month or so ago: the cable fell off the back of the GPS antenna. The 430 kept working just fine, aside from the NO GPS POSITION warning on the display.

After I rebooted my heart, I switched to the VOR and kept going. (I didn't really need to, as all I had to do was follow I-90, but it was good practice.)

 

[Everskyward]

In the end, it's the lack of proficiency that will kill the pilot.

That's true and it has always been that way.

I've seen the process leading that direction.

That's what some people say every time some piece of new technology comes out. VORs are a no-brainer compared to radio ranges so people will not be as skilled! I don't have any statistics to back this up but I'll bet all the new bells and whistles such as GPS, moving maps, TCAS and TAWS have saved more lives than they have taken.

 

[KennyFlys]

That's true and it has always been that way.
That's what some people say every time some piece of new technology comes out. VORs are a no-brainer compared to radio ranges so people will not be as skilled! I don't have any statistics to back this up but I'll bet all the new bells and whistles such as GPS, moving maps, TCAS and TAWS have saved more lives than they have taken.

Mari, it's not the use of the GPS. It's the loss of it or other lost equipment associated with it. They don't know how to go back to the basics of navigating on needles.

 

[Ted]

Mari, it's not the use of the GPS. It's the loss of it or other lost equipment associated with it. They don't know how to go back to the basics of navigating on needles.

Then they shouldn't have passed their private pilot check ride, much less instrument. My instructor made me use VORs, and I voluntarily used them in training. Now I use them when going IFR in a /A or /U aircraft (of which I fly both sometimes). I am by no means inept at using them, even though I generally use the GPS for ease and also to save time. However, while I'm flying along I'm tuning in VORs so if the GPS fails, I've got my backup already dialed in ready to go. I ALWAYS know where I am by multiple sources.

I understand a lot of pilots don't do this, and I understand your point that proficiency is important. However I would bet that Mari is correct and these tools have saved more lives than they've killed. Your magenta line of death is taking it too far and will not help make anyone more comfortable. I struggle with this as well, as I'm a believer that rules and regulations (at least for flying) are written in the blood of people who didn't follow them or found out the hard way that there should have been a regulation. However that's probably not the best wording to convince someone with a flying phobia that flying is safe (something I also believe).

 

[Everskyward]

Mari, it's not the use of the GPS. It's the loss of it or other lost equipment associated with it. They don't know how to go back to the basics of navigating on needles.

Of course you should be able to go back to the basics because they are so much more... basic. They tell you in school that if you are confused by what the FMS is telling you or you can't figure out how to program something to go back to the green (VOR) needles and fly that way because it is easier and more familiar. However, as I mentioned before, sometimes there are no ground-based backups and if you mis-program something both the map and the needles (if they are displaying the GPS course) will be wrong.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but you have seemed pretty anti-GPS in many of your prevous posts. I'm just giving another viewpoint.

 

[dmccormack]

I dunno...

There are those pilots who will always defer to the easiest, least demanding way -- always.

Eventually, they might die. But not always.

There are others who insist on wearing the hairshirt because it's the right way.

They don't necessarily remain unscathed.

The rets of us use the tools at hand, practice when we get rusty, and don't ever completely rely on any one tool, process, or system unless we're willing to accept the risk.

Thus SEL at night IMC over mountains is on my "rather not" list.

Even though I have.

 

[gismo]

That's true and it has always been that way.
That's what some people say every time some piece of new technology comes out. VORs are a no-brainer compared to radio ranges so people will not be as skilled! I don't have any statistics to back this up but I'll bet all the new bells and whistles such as GPS, moving maps, TCAS and TAWS have saved more lives than they have taken.

That pretty much sums up my perspective on this. With any new technology there is the potential for users to put too much faith in it and there will always be a need for some kind of redundancy and/or backup for anything than can fail but even for the pilots with too much trust in the latest advances there's likely a net positive safety benefit. With or without the hi-tech, some pilots will overstep their limits and some won't.

 

[gismo]

Mari, it's not the use of the GPS. It's the loss of it or other lost equipment associated with it. They don't know how to go back to the basics of navigating on needles.

And if all they had in the first place was the needles, and they fail, then what? IMO the same folks who would crash when their GPS quits would have crashed just as well when their VOR/GS receiver/display failed and they had to revert to ded reconning and pilotage. On top of that, given the perceived common lack of partial panel skills, I'd say that gyro failure is another situation where having GPS is a safety enhancement, even if a dependency develops.

 

[KennyFlys]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but you have seemed pretty anti-GPS in many of your previous posts. I'm just giving another viewpoint.

Not at all. I'm very for GPS. But, it's know the basics of how to fly needles. If you don't remain proficient in navigating on basic needles, you're going to be hurting when the GPS does fail.

Once I know the person can fly needles, then let's throw in more goodies to play with. But, until then... no magenta lines.

In thinking back, let me clarify an earlier statement.... I said, "Magenta lines kill pilots." That's because the pilot becomes so dependent on that magenta line they don't have a clue how to follow anything else. Then, it fails. All they have is an ILS or only a localizer on those old fashioned CDIs. Their stuck. They can't fly those, maintain airspeed, altitude as well as catching the step-downs. Before long, they're slow, below GS or the stepdown and either hit something or stall/spin in that last thousand feet.

Those magenta lines are an awesome tool. But, they also become a crutch for the pilot with no proficiency.

 

[KennyFlys]

Then they shouldn't have passed their private pilot check ride, much less instrument.

Ted, the problem is I'm seeing this in pilots who have flown for twenty years or more. My worse example two weeks ago has held an instrument rating since 1991. All he's ever done was his six approaches and a hold every six months.

Unfortunately, this describes the most common GA pilot out there with an instrument rating who is "current."

 

[Everskyward]

Ted, the problem is I'm seeing this in pilots who have flown for twenty years or more. My worse example two weeks ago has held an instrument rating since 1991.

If he learned in 1991 I doubt he learned with a GPS and even if he did I'm sure it didn't have a moving map with magenta lines. The issue of proficiency is independent of the type of equipment you are using.

 

[Ted]

Ted, the problem is I'm seeing this in pilots who have flown for twenty years or more. My worse example two weeks ago has held an instrument rating since 1991. All he's ever done was his six approaches and a hold every six months.

Unfortunately, this describes the most common GA pilot out there with an instrument rating who is "current."

So you make a blanket statement based on those few that doesn't apply to the rest of us, and is in the form that would likely scare people who didn't know better?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That's true and it has always been that way.
That's what some people say every time some piece of new technology comes out. VORs are a no-brainer compared to radio ranges so people will not be as skilled!

I think the difference is this: VOR's, even though they're easier than AN ranges, still required the pilot to create a picture in their head of what was going on. With GPS, the picture is created for you, thus making it very easy to lose the ability to create the picture yourself.

 

[Everskyward]

With GPS, the picture is created for you, thus making it very easy to lose the ability to create the picture yourself.

I flew with GPSs without moving maps for a long time so it's probably the map more than the GPS itself. As far as the radio ranges are concerned, I think it would be much harder to create the map in your head for them than it is to use a VOR.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I flew with GPSs without moving maps for a long time so it's probably the map more than the GPS itself.

Whoops... Yeah, the moving map is what I meant.

 

[KennyFlys]

If he learned in 1991 I doubt he learned with a GPS and even if he did I'm sure it didn't have a moving map with magenta lines. The issue of proficiency is independent of the type of equipment you are using.

Nope, he got into it after its debut in the mid-90s. Last year, he had a 530W upgrade from a 430. What he wanted originally was to use strictly GPS for WAAS approaches into Austin. At AUS, 99 times out of a 100, you'll be assigned an ILS. Hence, the need for raw needle proficiency.

 

[KennyFlys]

So you make a blanket statement based on those few that doesn't apply to the rest of us, and is in the form that would likely scare people who didn't know better?

I said, "common." You're a brand new instrument rated pilot. If you spend the next half dozen years doing no more than the six approaches and don't continue to improve your skill and proficiency, you'll be among the common I refer to.

 

[Ted]

I said, "common." You're a brand new instrument rated pilot. If you spend the next half dozen years doing no more than the six approaches and don't continue to improve your skill and proficiency, you'll be among the common I refer to.

I don't disagree with you, but the magenta line of death is taking it too far.

 

[Everskyward]

Nope, he got into it after its debut in the mid-90s. Last year, he had a 530W upgrade from a 430. What he wanted originally was to use strictly GPS for WAAS approaches into Austin. At AUS, 99 times out of a 100, you'll be assigned an ILS. Hence, the need for raw needle proficiency.

I've never considered 1991 the "mid-90s" but that aside, if he never learned how to use the needles correctly or forgot in the interim it's just something he needs to relearn. If he can't follow the needles of an ILS he's got more problems than the "magenta screen of death". How was he expecting to do a GPS approach with WAAS without following the needles anyway?

Of course he needs to learn how to fly both with and without the moving map just like you need to be able to fly partial panel or on the emergency instruments, but if he's blaming his lack of proficiency on it I think he's using it as a scapegoat. I agree with Ted that the whole, "you're going to kill yourself with that thing" is taking it way too far.

 

[SCCutler]

I think the difference is this: VOR's, even though they're easier than AN ranges, still required the pilot to create a picture in their head of what was going on. With GPS, the picture is created for you, thus making it very easy to lose the ability to create the picture yourself.

You know, I agree, but one thing that is a real challenge (for me, at least) is maintaining that mental "picture" of where I am in the overall scheme of things when being vectored for 25 minutes in IMC. Fly into the DFW Bravo from the southwest, destined for an airport on the northeast edge (this is my most frequent scenario coming into ADS IFR), and you'll be vectored to within an inch of your life (so to speak). It is TOUGH to keep that mental picture of where you are, especially of you are flying without an autopilot or in rough air. The GPS' ability to show you just that much - "I am around here..." - is a huge benefit.

I don't disagree with you, but the magenta line of death is taking it too far.

I think he's just trying to use it as a dramatic training tool, not imply that use of the GPS is inevitable death.


An instructor with whom I periodically fly did a great job of demonstrating to me the potential peril of fixating on the magenta line- he noticed that I was paying more attention than, perhaps, I should to the GPS when I was flying a GPS approach, following the GPS instead of the CDI on the HSI, and I made a mess of the whole thing. Good reminder.

 

[Ted]

You know, I agree, but one thing that is a real challenge (for me, at least) is maintaining that mental "picture" of where I am in the overall scheme of things when being vectored for 25 minutes in IMC. Fly into the DFW Bravo from the southwest, destined for an airport on the northeast edge (this is my most frequent scenario coming into ADS IFR), and you'll be vectored to within an inch of your life (so to speak). It is TOUGH to keep that mental picture of where you are, especially of you are flying without an autopilot or in rough air. The GPS' ability to show you just that much - "I am around here..." - is a huge benefit.

Exactly. It's a tremendously valuable aid to situational awareness. The key is understanding exactly what it is and how to use it. The fact that some people don't and use it improperly

I think he's just trying to use it as a dramatic training tool, not imply that use of the GPS is inevitable death.

Right, not dissimilar to my "Aviation regulations are written in blood" line. But I'm careful about who I say it to, and under what contexts. I certainly would not say it to someone who wasn't already convinced at how great aviation was.. It's important to be careful with dramatic lines. The point is not to scare the person you're talking to, it's to convey some message of importance.

In the case of the "magenta line of death" (which I know wasn't what Kenny actually said, but I can't remember what he said initially), I don't think I'd say that to anyone. Instead, I'd logically explain the importance of being able to work without the GPS and being good at your needle skills.

An instructor with whom I periodically fly did a great job of demonstrating to me the potential peril of fixating on the magenta line- he noticed that I was paying more attention than, perhaps, I should to the GPS when I was flying a GPS approach, following the GPS instead of the CDI on the HSI, and I made a mess of the whole thing. Good reminder.

And that, my friend, is good instruction!

 

[Everskyward]

It's important to be careful with dramatic lines. The point is not to scare the person you're talking to, it's to convey some message of importance.

In this case I'd be concerned that such dramatic language would cause a pilot to be apprehensive of the moving map and they would decide not to use it at all, instead of learning how to use it correctly.

In the case of the "magenta line of death" (which I know wasn't what Kenny actually said, but I can't remember what he said initially), I don't think I'd say that to anyone. Instead, I'd logically explain the importance of being able to work without the GPS and being good at your needle skills.

I think you are right on with that statement, Ted, and BTW the line was...

As I've been saying... "Magenta lines kill pilots."

 

[KennyFlys]

I've never considered 1991 the "mid-90s" but that aside, if he never learned how to use the needles correctly or forgot in the interim it's just something he needs to relearn. If he can't follow the needles of an ILS he's got more problems than the "magenta screen of death". How was he expecting to do a GPS approach with WAAS without following the needles anyway?

He received the IR in 1991. He got his first GPS in a place "in the mid-90s" by his own account. I don't have an exact year as that wasn't an issue for me to address. The point is once he learned the easier method, he never went back.

He isn't. He flies coupled down to the last possible moment.

Of course he needs to learn how to fly both with and without the moving map just like you need to be able to fly partial panel or on the emergency instruments, but if he's blaming his lack of proficiency on it I think he's using it as a scapegoat. I agree with Ted that the whole, "you're going to kill yourself with that thing" is taking it way too far.

Lack of proficiency comes from simply not seeking out the instruction and learning what is necessary if it's not held from training. It comes from doing the bare minimum for the purpose of currency and stopping there. It comes from not using what was learned and practicing it constantly either in the real world or in simulated conditions. It's also a product of laziness.

Is my statement about dependency on GPS resulting in magenta lines killing pilots? Absolutely. But, that doesn't make it any less true.

People are forgetting... 135 charter pilots such as yourself, 121 pilots such as Greg or even businessmen such as Dave Siciliano remain proficient because you take a proactive role in doing so. Each of you have written of seeking out training to maintain currency as well as proficiency. There are others on this board who fall into this category. Then, there are more pilots again with relatively new instrument ratings who are still interested in improving and adding new ratings along with learning.

But, such pilots are not the common GA pilot out there. I'm speaking of those who do not fall into this category and are similar to those I've encountered the last few months. If my saying such things about how a magenta line kills pilots offends someone... GOOD! Be offended. But, don't let it stop there. Prove you're not one of those pilots. Get involved in maintaining the skill and proficiency so you're not one the common pilots I speak of. Maybe you won't be so ticked off at me for having a strong opinion about what I've been observing.

 

[KennyFlys]

I don't disagree with you, but the magenta line of death is taking it too far.

Had you been sitting in the back seat of a couple of flights I've been on, it's guaranteed your mind would be changed.

 

[KennyFlys]

I think he's just trying to use it as a dramatic training tool, not imply that use of the GPS is inevitable death.

Very good, Counselor!

But then, sometimes it takes a good scare to get someone to see the light of day. My only hope is it's only a scare to open eyes and not worse.

 

[Everskyward]

But, such pilots are not the common GA pilot out there. I'm speaking of those who do not fall into this category and are similar to those I've encountered the last few months.

Remember, I was a CFI long before the magenta line was ever invented and lack of proficiency was a problem even then. I'm not offended by the whole "magenta line of death" thing, I just think it's overly dramatic. But we obviously have different styles.

 

[Ted]

Had you been sitting in the back seat of a couple of flights I've been on, it's guaranteed your mind would be changed.

Kenny, you are blaming the gun for the shooting, so to speak.

The problem is the pilots, not the tools.

 

[KennyFlys]

Kenny, you are blaming the gun for the shooting, so to speak.

The problem is the pilots, not the tools.

Where did I blame the tools? Read what I've been saying and you'll see it's all about the pilots.

Those magenta lines are an awesome tool. But, they also become a crutch for the pilot with no proficiency.

As soon as the crutch fails, the pilot does also soon after.

 

[Ted]

Where did I blame the tools? Read what I've been saying and you'll see it's all about the pilots.

Remember rules of public speaking. When you say something that's catchy (the Magenta Line of Death!), that's goign to get people's attention and stick in their minds.

As soon as the crutch fails, the pilot does also soon after.

Right, but it's a pilot issue, which you and I agree on. Going about blaming (or making strong, memorable statements that are in that same line) the tool is ineffective. It gives the students the wrong idea, and it does you a disservice because it gives off the impression that you're against these tools that really serve to make the skies safer for the vast majority of us.

I am suggesting that you reevaluate how you convey your message (the heart of which I believe we agree upon) for the better of your listeners, be they impressionable students who don't know better or those of us on here.

 

[KennyFlys]

Right, but it's a pilot issue, which you and I agree on. Going about blaming (or making strong, memorable statements that are in that same line) the tool is ineffective. It gives the students the wrong idea, and it does you a disservice because it gives off the impression that you're against these tools that really serve to make the skies safer for the vast majority of us.

I said, "Magenta lines kill pilots." There's a difference. And, it needs to get people's attention.

I'm not against them and never speak against the tools. I speak against using something the student isn't yet ready to learn. Likewise, I speak against learning how to be proficient on GPS when the pilot isn't proficient on basic needles off a localizer. In other words, learn to walk before running.

I am suggesting that you reevaluate how you convey your message (the heart of which I believe we agree upon) for the better of your listeners, be they impressionable students who don't know better or those of us on here.

I'm not really speaking about students, here. The bulk of what I've been addressing has to do with certificated pilots with an instrument rating who have absolutely no proficiency and are maintaining currency by the bare minimums.

But, I'll make a deal with you... as soon as I have five different pilots walk in here before the end of this year with instrument ratings who are already proficient and simply want to remain that way with some brush up under IFR, I'll change my rhetoric. But, those types won't be the "common GA pilot" I've been speaking of.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

He received the IR in 1991. He got his first GPS in a place "in the mid-90s" by his own account. I don't have an exact year as that wasn't an issue for me to address. The point is once he learned the easier method, he never went back.

He isn't. He flies coupled down to the last possible moment.

Lack of proficiency comes from simply not seeking out the instruction and learning what is necessary if it's not held from training.

So if this guy never seeks out instruction - Why is he coming to you?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You know, I agree, but one thing that is a real challenge (for me, at least) is maintaining that mental "picture" of where I am in the overall scheme of things when being vectored for 25 minutes in IMC. Fly into the DFW Bravo from the southwest, destined for an airport on the northeast edge (this is my most frequent scenario coming into ADS IFR), and you'll be vectored to within an inch of your life (so to speak). It is TOUGH to keep that mental picture of where you are, especially of you are flying without an autopilot or in rough air. The GPS' ability to show you just that much - "I am around here..." - is a huge benefit.

Very true, and I never said it wasn't. I love me my Garmin toys!

But, I was hardly ever allowed to use them while working on my IR, and I think that forced me to develop a better sense of situational awareness. And my CFII would not let me just get vectored around, he'd make me tell him where I was, at any and all times. You can keep that mental picture very easily while getting vectored by using a single VOR and DME, or even fairly easily using two VOR's.

 

[KennyFlys]

So if this guy never seeks out instruction - Why is he coming to you?

He's from New Mexico and will be making trips to Austin every week the next year. He said couldn't afford to not get into Austin due to IMC. His cousin is an instrument rated pilot but not an instructor. He said the cousin suggested he get some instruction. So, someone had begun to intervene before he came to me. Even if he doesn't call me back I hope he does get instruction somewhere.