Forward Slips with Flaps, Cessna... Is it Ok?

[Henning]

btw, for the usenet refugees, remember the slips with flaps T-shirt? I still have mine.

Yep, but a girl got mine.

 

[Henning]

I'll give a slightly different take on it. As I understand it the newer (post early to mid 70's) 172's may have the oscillation or vibration if slipped with full flaps as other folks have noted. The older 172's may have the nose drop if slipped with full flaps. The thought is the nose drop would get you in a bind if it happened at low level. Supposedly the later 172's had larger horizontal stabilizers which eleminated the nose drop problem. I haven't measured horizontal stabilizers to see if there is any truth to the story. Maybe Jessie or Henning know since they are the source of all info.

Hey, I know it must be true 'cause I read it on the internet. I haven't gone looking for a nose drop on an old 172 but I might in the near future since my hangar mate flies one. I have slipped N's & P's with full flaps and the only vibration was one CFI's face when I ignored his protests.:smile: I gave him the not prohibited line and he was such a book guy that he shut up.

Tell ya what, I've done full deflection slips in a 172 with flaps 40 in. A couple times I'd get a bit of an oscillation which was completely controllable and not really worse than gusty winds.

 

[Henning]

Are we confusing "forward" with "side"? There seems to be two camps, but what I'm talking about is a "forward" slip, that is, slipping with the nose wherever it needs to be, as opposed to a "sideslip", which is also cross-controlled, but with rudder used to keep the nose aligned with the runway.
Some people call the first type a "side slip" because the plane's nose is pointed sideways relative to the runway, but I call it "forward" because the plane is slipping more in line with the runway. Or more importantly, more in line with the ground track. Forward.

Both are identical when referenced to what you fly in, the relative wind. Forward or side merely refers to the orientation with your ground track which has absolutely no aerodynamic relevance. Whoever started the side/forward thing should be dug up out of their grave, hung, shot and drawn & quartered. There is only one slip, it is when you cross the controls for whatever reason to achieve whatever result, and even in the event of a stall is not a particularly hazardous thing (the low wing has to come up and over to spin) as most people will correct the break before the plane gets back to level. It's the skid (over application of the rudder) that is the real hazard because the low wing just tucks under and you're turning circles before you can swap feet.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ah yes another incompetent CFI well I may not be totally incompetent but I'm not confident. I have made so many mistakes.

No question of competence, just a question of whether the student understands why it's OK to do something the book says to avoid doing, what the consequences are of doing it, and when you might not want to do it.

I really want them to have a healthy respect of my opinion compared to the POH and engine manual.

I hate telling folks to do something contrary to the book, because 99% of the time, the book is right, and I want them to respect that. But when I do tell them to do something not in, or contrary to, the book, I think it's important that they understand the why so they know that in this particular instance, there's a good reason to do otherwise, and that they shouldn't think that the book is to be deviated from lightly.

With all due respect they need more disdain of opinions on the Internet.

Depends on whose opinion. As my wife said she learned in Journalism, "Consider the source." If it's Charlie Melot talking about engines, you can pretty much take it to the bank. If it's a Student Pilot with 12 hours talking about ATC procedures, you need to think twice about it. The problem, of course, is determining who they really are.

Let's just say the same place I learned about forward slips with full flaps also said it's ok to fly in loose formation for cool pictures.

 

[SkyHog]

Ah yes another incompetent CFI well I may not be totally incompetent but I'm not confident. I have made so many mistakes.

I will discuss this with him. He's a mentor and really cares about the candidates. That's why I use him.

I kind of agree that a new private pilot should have a healthy respect for what's in the POH. My role as the Instructor and purveyor of the truth in aviation is very suspect. In general the POH is better than me.

The secret here is to never trust anything you hear....even in this case. Being a CFI isn't a sign that a person is all knowing (or in many cases, somewhat knowing), it just means that person passed a checkride. A good CFI and a good pilot will research why things are the way they are.

Why does a plane spin? Too many CFIs think the answer ends at "because it stalled while cross controlled" and don't look into the whys behind it.

Even more CFIs take what their CFIs told them as gospel, and that is how bad information propogates. ATITAPA for one instance, not understanding the difference between avoid and prohibited is another, not using full flaps because of wind gusts is another.

I can't think of a single time (aside from as a clueless student) that I've ever taken someone's word as gospel without researching. Ron Levy, back on the yellow board, was my hero, because he always had the answers to whatever question was asked....but I still verified to make sure, primarily because I doubt the FAA would accept "Ron Levy said so" as a valid legal defense. There was also some dude named Marty something or other that gave a lot of great interpretations too. I dunno what happened to him, but I treated his advice the same way.

I really want them to have a healthy respect of my opinion compared to the POH and engine manual. With all due respect they need more disdain of opinions on the Internet. Let's just say the same place I learned about forward slips with full flaps also said it's ok to fly in loose formation for cool pictures.

I disagree with your desire of disdain of the opinions on the internet. The internet is a very, very valuable source of information, even moreso than the POH in many cases. I don't think anyone is saying "Slip the hell outta that plane with flaps, the POH be damned," instead, I think people are saying "The POH says to avoid it, and here's why: xxx, yyy, zzz," which is the intelligent way to approach an issue that is somewhat cloudy.

I'll never take a CFI's advice or interpretation as being 100% correct again, since I've had too many CFIs try to kill me in the air. A CFI is just a pilot that can make money by teaching others to do as they do (or, in the case of a good CFI, can make money by teaching others how to find out how to do things). Its not that I don't respect CFIs, its that I don't give a 50,000+ hour CFI any more respect than I do a 100 hour Private Pilot because I simply don't know how many of those 50,000+ hours were earned by stumbling through the air and accidentally successfully completing flights.

As to the loose formation point...depends on the definition of loose. If a private pilot cannot fly close enough to get decent pictures in the air safely, they don't belong in the air....how are they ever going to do simultaneous parallel approaches to L/R runways without the basic skill of "don't hit the other guy?"

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Even more CFIs take what their CFIs told them as gospel, and that is how bad information propogates.

Like, stall speed increases with bank...

 

[Areeda]

I really appreciate the discussion.

I don't mean to disparage all information on the Internet or all CFI spouted gospel. There is a lot of truth there. The trick is as Ron said knowing the source and checking the references.

I also don't want to say never question the book. Again I agree with Ron it's correct 99% of the time and the other 1% it's more suboptimal than down right wrong.

I guess my real issue is confined to student pilots and the private pilot checkride. In this context forward slips with full flaps are not a necessary maneuver.

Nick I don't want to get into the loose formation debate in this thread, I'm already in over my head with slips. All I'll say is that I've never heard anyone who is formation qualified say go ahead do it, but I've heard lots of people with no formation training say it's no big deal. For me it's another know the source of the advice situation. To meet the FAR requirements all you have to do is brief the flight with all participating pilots. If you're comfortable with that, you are PIC and it's your decision.

Joe

 

[poadeleted20]

As to the loose formation point...depends on the definition of loose. If a private pilot cannot fly close enough to get decent pictures in the air safely, they don't belong in the air....how are they ever going to do simultaneous parallel approaches to L/R runways without the basic skill of "don't hit the other guy?"

The problem is that they have only been taught how to avoid, not how to get close without hitting, and so don't realize when getting close is about to become hitting. Until you actually learn formation flying, you don't realize how fast things can go from OK to OMG, or how to tell when that's happening.

 

[poadeleted20]

I guess my real issue is confined to student pilots and the private pilot checkride. In this context forward slips with full flaps are not a necessary maneuver.

I agree -- there's nothing in the PP-A PTS requiring slips with full flaps. A slip to a landing is required (with whatever flap setting is recommended), and the use of flaps for landings as appropriate (but not necessarily full flaps) is required. However, since you need to slip as part of a crosswind landing in just about anything other than an Ercoupe, and the use of flaps is recommended on virtually all landings, training on slips with flaps is a virtual necessity for all pilots training on slippable flapped airplanes -- including an understanding of any warnings, cautions, or advisories on that.

 

[dmccormack]

I agree -- there's nothing in the PP-A PTS requiring slips with full flaps. A slip to a landing is required (with whatever flap setting is recommended), and the use of flaps for landings as appropriate (but not necessarily full flaps) is required. However, since you need to slip as part of a crosswind landing in just about anything other than an Ercoupe, and the use of flaps is recommended on virtually all landings, training on slips with flaps is a virtual necessity for all pilots training on slippable flapped airplanes -- including an understanding of any warnings, cautions, or advisories on that.

Hang on...

If the slip is being used to steepen the descent rate without increasing airspeed, why wouldn't full flaps be applied (in other words, the only possible recommended flap setting given the condition).

It would be like slipping with power...

 

[poadeleted20]

If the slip is being used to steepen the descent rate without increasing airspeed, why wouldn't full flaps be applied (in other words, the only possible recommended flap setting given the condition).

Maybe because they're flying a 172 and are experiencing oscillations every time they slip with full flaps. Other than that, I can't think of a good reason not to use full flaps before resorting to a slip to get down over an obstacle unless the crosswind is so strong that you need the extra speed to keep from running out of control authority. And if it's that bad, you probably should be landing on another runway more aligned with the wind, even if that means going to another airport.

However, there are a lot of pilots out there who feel that it's necessary to reduce flap settings in gusty or crosswind situations. As long as they're willing to use longer runways and spend more on tires and brakes, so be it.

 

[Pilawt]

Supposedly the later 172's had larger horizontal stabilizers which eleminated the nose drop problem. I haven't measured horizontal stabilizers to see if there is any truth to the story.

It was the larger dorsal fin of the 1972 C-172L that fixed it, per Cessna's former Manager of Aerodynamics & Flight Test (see post #50).

Tell ya what, I've done full deflection slips in a 172 with flaps 40 in. A couple times I'd get a bit of an oscillation which was completely controllable and not really worse than gusty winds.

What year model 172? Before or after 1972?

 

[dmccormack]

Maybe because they're flying a 172 and are experiencing oscillations every time they slip with full flaps. Other than that, I can't think of a good reason not to use full flaps before resorting to a slip to get down over an obstacle unless the crosswind is so strong that you need the extra speed to keep from running out of control authority. And if it's that bad, you probably should be landing on another runway more aligned with the wind, even if that means going to another airport.

However, there are a lot of pilots out there who feel that it's necessary to reduce flap settings in gusty or crosswind situations. As long as they're willing to use longer runways and spend more on tires and brakes, so be it.

Exactly.

I'll reveal my bias here -- I'm a full flap, least amount of energy on touchdown type.

Therefore if you need to slip to lose altitude without increasing airspeed, you should have already reduced power to idle and applied full flaps.

As far as slipping for crosswind -- I don't teach it as a "slip," necessarily -- rather, I simply teach that in crosswinds, bank controls drift, while rudder controls rollout direction. Since we want to touch down and roll along the centerline, we will need to keep the airplane pointed that way.

When I fly myself, I hardly ever fly a slip all the way down in a crosswind. I fly crabbed until about tree line (~50' AGL), and then adapt the bank to arrest the drift once I'm aligned with the centerline.

I find the wind direction and velocity is so significantly different from 200' AGL to 100' and even 50' AGL, the idea that on final I'll figure out how much bank to apply all the way down is pointless.

 

[Henning]

It was the larger dorsal fin of the 1972 C-172L that fixed it, per Cessna's former Manager of Aerodynamics & Flight Test (see post #50).

What year model 172? Before or after 1972?

Older, did flaps 40 even exist in a 1972 172? This is the first time I read about the pitch down, and I most likely experienced that, but since it was what I was looking for anyway, I probably never considered it was a problem.

 

[Pilawt]

Older, did flaps 40 even exist in a 1972 172?

Yep, 1956-1980.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Cessna says "AVOID" because if you stall it, you are set up for a cross controled spin.

That is true of ALL airplanes, not just Cessnas, yet the C172 is the only airplane placarded this way. I've also heard that Cessnas are very difficult to spin from a slip - If you want to spin them, you skid.

 

[SkyHog]

That is true of ALL airplanes, not just Cessnas, yet the C172 is the only airplane placarded this way. I've also heard that Cessnas are very difficult to spin from a slip - If you want to spin them, you skid.

Its not a matter of "you heard," Jesse's video pretty much proves it. lol

 

[N1347B]

Oh Heavenly Day! You will not fall from the sky if you slip a Cessna with full flaps. If you think that, you need to stay on the ground!

The Old Man and I put 900 hours on a fine 1962 Cessna 172C. It had a lovely johnson bar and a full 40 degrees. In my opinion, Cessna lost a lot of utility when it did away with both. We never felt a nibble.

If it bothers you, go up and practice slips with flaps at altitude. If you don't like 'em, get an airplane without flaps!

Geeze, I'm a Granny and I don't wring my hands over some of these irrelevant issues like you guys do. For Heavens sake, get some proper training or education.

Sorry for the rant. I tend to ignore these type of threads. Apparently my estrogen is low. :wink2:

Deb

 

[SkyHog]

Oh Heavenly Day! You will not fall from the sky if you slip a Cessna with full flaps. If you think that, you need to stay on the ground!

The Old Man and I put 900 hours on a fine 1962 Cessna 172C. It had a lovely johnson bar and a full 40 degrees. In my opinion, Cessna lost a lot of utility when it did away with both. We never felt a nibble.

If it bothers you, go up and practice slips with flaps at altitude. If you don't like 'em, get an airplane without flaps!

Geeze, I'm a Granny and I don't wring my hands over some of these irrelevant issues like you guys do. For Heavens sake, get some proper training or education.

Sorry for the rant. I tend to ignore these type of threads. Apparently my estrogen is low. :wink2:

Deb

I used to be this angry until I started using that question during my CFI interviews. If a CFI says anything like "No, you can't slip a Cessna with full flaps" I will physically turn away from the CFI and ask for another in their presence.

Since I've started doing that, I just kinda shake my head when I hear about others that believe it. I'd hate to be in the plane with them when they have to slip a plane down with full flaps (say, during an engine failure).

 

[michael Killacky]

Old book, superseded. See the current TCDS.

Okay, now I have a question. I also have a 172B that "prohibits" slips with full flaps per the Owner's Manual. How would I know that this prohibition has been superseded and where might I find a copy of the current TCDS? There is no placard near the bar with the prohibition that I've ever seen.

FWIW, the Owner's Manual leaves quite a bit to be desired. When did Cessna actually start putting a more complete POH in the planes?

Mike

 

[gismo]

Okay, now I have a question. I also have a 172B that "prohibits" slips with full flaps per the Owner's Manual. How would I know that this prohibition has been superseded and where might I find a copy of the current TCDS? There is no placard near the bar with the prohibition that I've ever seen.

FWIW, the Owner's Manual leaves quite a bit to be desired. When did Cessna actually start putting a more complete POH in the planes?

Mike

Technically the registered owner of the airplane is responsible for ensuring the POH in the airplane is current but a non-owner pilot can check the TCDS for the required updates. It looks like there's no specific POH requirement for a 172B.

You can find the TCDS for any FAA certified aircraft here:

http://tinyurl.com/faa-tcds

And here's the pertinent placard info from your TCDS:

On flap handle, Models 172 through 172E
(1) "Flaps - Pull to extend
Takeoff Retract 0°
1st notch 10°
Landing 0° - 40°
(2) "Avoid slips with flaps down."

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But regardless of wind, in a fwd slip, you are definitely presenting more wing surface, and surface in general, to the relative wind, because most of the relative wind has to do with the plane's actual path thru the air, and the wing is more or less pointed along the flight path. It's not quite the same thing as merely crabbing.

It's not the same thing as crabbing at all. Crabbing is completely coordinated.

*most* of the time, you are presenting more surface into the relative wind in a forward slip, but that's because usually a forward slip is done with the rudder to the stop. If you have enough crosswind that a sideslip requires full rudder, they'll be exactly the same. In addition, if you do a forward slip with less rudder, it'll be exactly the same as a more usual sideslip. But either way, the airplane doesn't know what's going on.

Oddly enough, in the 182 it seems that forward slips don't do a whole lot when you have full flaps - The 40-degree barn doors let you fall out of the sky quite well on their own, and when you slip you just end up blanking one of them.

But I believe for what is typically thought of as a fwd slip, to increase drag primarily, the angle between the nose and the path of flight is greater.

Generally, yes - And I think what you mean by "path of flight" here is really "relative wind."

At any rate, for me, the fwd slip works better to come down steeper and slower, and the side slip works better to correct for drift, regardless of airspeed or descent rate. If they were aerodynamically the same, I don't see how this could be. I realize that there is an area where they sort of overlap, especially in stronger xwinds where a side slip will require a lot of control input, but I don't think they are quite the same.

And right there you get it - It's a matter of magnitude (your stronger xwinds comment).

Here's a thought question for you - If your engine fails and you have a perfect but narrow spot to land in, and there's a crosswind, should you correct for the crosswind via a sideslip or a crab?

 

[Henning]

Here's a thought question for you - If your engine fails and you have a perfect but narrow spot to land in, and there's a crosswind, should you correct for the crosswind via a sideslip or a crab?

Depends where you are on the required glidepath. High, slip/ on crab.

 

[poadeleted20]

For Heavens sake, get some proper training or education.

Regrettably, many less experienced CFI's are no better educated on this issue than those who asked the question here. They are themselves products of inadequately trained instructors. Thus, all we who know can do is draw back the curtain and shed the light of knowledge on those huddled in the darkness of ignorance without blaming them for the ignorance of their primary instructors.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Tom-D
Cessna says "AVOID" because if you stall it, you are set up for a cross controled spin.

That is true of ALL airplanes, not just Cessnas, yet the C172 is the only airplane placarded this way. I've also heard that Cessnas are very difficult to spin from a slip - If you want to spin them, you skid.

In a slip both wings are at the same angle of attack. The airplane will want to level off and has to be held in the slip because of the blanking effect of the fuselage on the high wing, and the reduction of drag on the lower tip (less vortex spillover). With pro-slip aileron, we actually have less AOA on the outer portion of the lower wing that we do on the higher, since ailerons change both camber and incidence.

A spin needs a difference in AOA between wings, with the higher AOA on the inside, and to get that we need a skid. To skid you need a turn, and in a turn we not only have the slightly lower airspeed on the inside wing, but most skids happen in a descending turn, where the inside wing sees a higher AOA as well so it'll stall sooner. And the opposite aileron used in the skid makes the AOA difference even bigger. Pure dynamite. THAT will produce the spin.

We can also get a spin from a coordinated climbing turn, because the same helix effect produces a higher AOA on the outside wing in a climb.

Dan

 

[tonycondon]

Regrettably, many less experienced CFI's are no better educated on this issue than those who asked the question here. They are themselves products of inadequately trained instructors. Thus, all we who know can do is draw back the curtain and shed the light of knowledge on those huddled in the darkness of ignorance without blaming them for the ignorance of their primary instructors.

Thanks for saying that Ron. I've been trying to think of a nice way to put that.

 

[SkyHog]

Regrettably, many less experienced CFI's are no better educated on this issue than those who asked the question here. They are themselves products of inadequately trained instructors. Thus, all we who know can do is draw back the curtain and shed the light of knowledge on those huddled in the darkness of ignorance without blaming them for the ignorance of their primary instructors.

The unfortunate thing, Ron, is that it is not just less experienced CFIs that believe it. Usually when a thread like this comes along, someone will say something like "I've been instructring for 5,000 hours, so you know I am a good CFI, and I would never allow a student or any other pilot to disobey the POH" or something along those lines.

The good thing is that anytime this thread comes up, I smile a little, because I realize that the OP will probably understand something that many, many pilots don't: CFIs aren't gods, and they are just as prone to bad knowledge as any other pilot.

I wish there was a way to change something about getting the PPL that tests one's ability to find answers instead of being told answers....like, during the oral, requiring that not only the answer is known to each question, but a relevant citation must be made too. It'd make the checkride harder, but it may help eliminate students/CFIs that take their mentors word as gospel.

 

[dmccormack]

The unfortunate thing, Ron, is that it is not just less experienced CFIs that believe it. Usually when a thread like this comes along, someone will say something like "I've been instructring for 5,000 hours, so you know I am a good CFI, and I would never allow a student or any other pilot to disobey the POH" or something along those lines.

The good thing is that anytime this thread comes up, I smile a little, because I realize that the OP will probably understand something that many, many pilots don't: CFIs aren't gods, and they are just as prone to bad knowledge as any other pilot.

I wish there was a way to change something about getting the PPL that tests one's ability to find answers instead of being told answers....like, during the oral, requiring that not only the answer is known to each question, but a relevant citation must be made too. It'd make the checkride harder, but it may help eliminate students/CFIs that take their mentors word as gospel.

Can you provide examples of the CFI Ignorance to which you refer?

You seem to have a bit of an ax to grind -- whenever a slightly contentious (and Slipping with full flaps in a Cessna placarded with warnings is certainly "contentious"), you're quick to decry the ignorance of CFIs.

What about the ignorance of any pilot -- CFI or ATP or SP -- that may not have pondered or even cared?

For example -- in the CAP C172N180HP I've flown, there is a placard -- "Avoid Extended Slips with Flaps."

About 8 minutes into my initial checkout flight in that airplane, I asked, "What's 'extended'?"

"Yeah, I know... we say 'Don't exceed 30 seconds,' since some of the older POHs specify 30 seconds. Has to do with fuel unporting or airflow blanketing or some such..."

End of converstaion.

Did I ride that hobby horse for the next hour?

No -- I flew with that very proficient and capable CFII and learned lots while being checked out in that particular airplane.

We've since discussed it, and his reply remains, "I know it's a bit vague, but that's the way CAP wants it."

Good enough for me.

In owner airplanes, or rental airplanes, if the owner says "Don't slip with full flaps" or some such, I will try to draw out why, but won't be a royal ass and state: "I won't fly with you unless you agree with me about the stupidity of such prohibitions!"

I've had them tell me they have to fly final "10 knots or so above what the book says to really get it down smooth" or "I never bank more than 30 degrees -- the airplane is unstable" and "Don't stall this airplane, it's hard on the engine!"

I listen, take into account why they think whatever, and then try to get them to explain how what they said doesn't make sense.

 

[SkyHog]

Can you provide examples of the CFI Ignorance to which you refer?

Anecdotal (sp??), sure. I can try searching the boards for it, but I guarantee you that it exists either here or at AOPA.

You seem to have a bit of an ax to grind -- whenever a slightly contentious (and Slipping with full flaps in a Cessna placarded with warnings is certainly "contentious"), you're quick to decry the ignorance of CFIs.

Its not really an ax so much as a desire to enlighten folks: CFI's are not gods, nor are any other pilots. There are WAY too many people that will take advice from CFIs without verifying it, and that's what causes bad rumors to advance and become accepted.

Flying the step? I'll bet for every pilot that believes it works, there are another few dozen that believe it works because he swears it works.

What about the ignorance of any pilot -- CFI or ATP or SP -- that may not have pondered or even cared?

That's my point....it affects ALL, including CFIs. Some people seem to think that getting the CFI ticket suddenly means you're more knowledgable, or you have access to materials that others don't....and that's not true.

For example -- in the CAP C172N180HP I've flown, there is a placard -- "Avoid Extended Slips with Flaps."

About 8 minutes into my initial checkout flight in that airplane, I asked, "What's 'extended'?"

"Yeah, I know... we say 'Don't exceed 30 seconds,' since some of the older POHs specify 30 seconds. Has to do with fuel unporting or airflow blanketing or some such..."

End of converstaion.

In that case, I'd have done the same, as the CFI was able to explain that his beliefs were caused by flight school ignorance, not his own. He made it sound like a stupid policy, but he had to enforce it. Good enough for me.

Did I ride that hobby horse for the next hour?

Its not a hobby horse. The type of pilot or CFI that refuses to learn the whys behind flying is not the type of pilot I want to be associated with. They are dangerous, because they believe what they hear, and they take it. Imagine if their hero CFI mentor honestly thought that it was fine to fly through P-space after 5pm, since the government control facilities were closed and they no longer monitor the airspace. He says that, the mentoree goes "oh....wow, that's a lot more convenient then!" and believes it without verification. Do you want to fly with that person? They're the same person (and, btw, I've met someone that believed both).

No -- I flew with that very proficient and capable CFII and learned lots while being checked out in that particular airplane.

Did you learn anything you couldn't have learned alone? If your answer is yes, than you failed to check the facts behind what you learned, and there's a good chance you learned something incorrectly.

We've since discussed it, and his reply remains, "I know it's a bit vague, but that's the way CAP wants it."

Good enough for me.

Me too. Sometimes, organizations are retarded too.

 

[dmccormack]

Anecdotal (sp??), sure. I can try searching the boards for it, but I guarantee you that it exists either here or at AOPA.

Dude, I can line up 30 PhDs in History that can't tell you where Jumonville Glen is located and why it is important.

So?

Yeah -- some people with credentials say or don't say dumb stuff.

Welcome to life.

Its not really an ax so much as a desire to enlighten folks: CFI's are not gods, nor are any other pilots. There are WAY too many people that will take advice from CFIs without verifying it, and that's what causes bad rumors to advance and become accepted.

Straw man.

Who said a "CFI is God"?

A CFI has taken the time and expense to study and pass written and practical tests on what the FAA has concluded is the minimal tasks required to fly and teach.

Period.

There's is no implication or expectation that the CFI ticket bestows All Flight Knowledge, no more than a Master's in Computer Science does the same for all things techie.

If someone thinks that, he/she is an idiot CFI, MA, PhD, Plumber -- whatever.

But there's nothing endemic in the CFI ranks that makes them especially prone to this.

Its not a hobby horse. The type of pilot or CFI that refuses to learn the whys behind flying is not the type of pilot I want to be associated with. They are dangerous, because they believe what they hear, and they take it. Imagine if their hero CFI mentor honestly thought that it was fine to fly through P-space after 5pm, since the government control facilities were closed and they no longer monitor the airspace. He says that, the mentoree goes "oh....wow, that's a lot more convenient then!" and believes it without verification. Do you want to fly with that person? They're the same person (and, btw, I've met someone that believed both).

"Refuses to learn" what, exactly?

Seriously -- most (all?) pilots up until 1955 or so believed you could get additional airspeed by flying on the step.

So Pappy Boyington is a moron?

Sure, there are debatable issues in flying -- crab to landing, for example. There are people who say absolutely "Thou shalt always slip!"

Ain't necessarily so.


There are:

1. Will Kill You Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes (KSA) that must be adhered to At All Times,
2. Good To Know for various eventualities KSAs that may or may not be germane, and
3. Nice To Know, but not Critical KSAs, that you may never encounter.

I place "Slips exceeding 30 seconds in 40 degree flapped Cessnas" in the second category. AFAIK, no one has died from limiting slip durations.

Did you learn anything you couldn't have learned alone? If your answer is yes, than you failed to check the facts behind what you learned, and there's a good chance you learned something incorrectly.

"He who is self-taught has a fool for a teacher."

Of course I learned. I learn every time I'm in an airplane. Some stuff makes me go "Hmmm..." But it doesn't register on the Gotta Know scale so it may lay dormant for a while.

Me too. Sometimes, organizations are retarded too.

It's not always "retarded" -- maybe they just don't want to expend the time, money, and materials to re-placard every C172180HP that is going to be replaced in another year?

 

[SkyHog]

Dude, I can line up 30 PhDs in History that can't tell you where Jumonville Glen is located and why it is important.

So?

Yeah -- some people with credentials say or don't say dumb stuff.

Welcome to life.

I never said all CFIs are morons, in fact, if I gave that impression, I misimpressed, because I honestly respect that CFIs gave a lot of time and studying to get their CFIs.

Straw man.

Who said a "CFI is God"?

Too many pilots that take CFI's word as the ultimate. A CFI is just a pilot with some more ratings and studying done.

A CFI has taken the time and expense to study and pass written and practical tests on what the FAA has concluded is the minimal tasks required to fly and teach.

Key word being "minimal," and that's my point. Being a CFI doesn't automatically make you more knowledgable about any topic than a Private Pilot. Many private pilots know as much or more than CFIs.

Period.

Comma.

There's is no implication or expectation that the CFI ticket bestows All Flight Knowledge, no more than a Master's in Computer Science does the same for all things techie.

If someone thinks that, he/she is an idiot CFI, MA, PhD, Plumber -- whatever.

You're arguing my point now. I think we agree, you're just trying to find something to disagree with me on.

But there's nothing endemic in the CFI ranks that makes them especially prone to this.

No, but there is something about the CFI title that seems to make some pilots swear they're all knowing....

"Refuses to learn" what, exactly?

The why. The most important thing. Sure, an aileron turns a plane, but why? Do you have to know that? Probably not, but knowing it means you care enough about aviation to learn what is necessary.

Seriously -- most (all?) pilots up until 1955 or so believed you could get additional airspeed by flying on the step.

So Pappy Boyington is a moron?

If Pappy Boyington took the knowledge we have now and still believed in flying the step, then yes, Pappy Boyington is a moron.

Now I get to be a moron....who the hell is Pappy Boyington?

Sure, there are debatable issues in flying -- crab to landing, for example. There are people who say absolutely "Thou shalt always slip!"

Ain't necessarily so.

Nope, and those that believe that are just as bad as "Thou shalt never slip" pilots, because its a tool that should be used as necessary.

There are:

1. Will Kill You Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes (KSA) that must be adhered to At All Times,
2. Good To Know for various eventualities KSAs that may or may not be germane, and
3. Nice To Know, but not Critical KSAs, that you may never encounter.

I place "Slips exceeding 30 seconds in 40 degree flapped Cessnas" in the second category. AFAIK, no one has died from limiting slip durations.

I place all into the "Will Kill You" area, primarily because not caring enough to learn the whys behind flying will eventually get the pilot into a bind they are incapable of understanding how to get out of. Sure, flying the step or slipping with flaps in and of itself is not really the issue, but it shows the attitude behind the pilot himself....and that is the key.

"He who is self-taught has a fool for a teacher."

Says the man who gets paid to teach. Seriously, with as many bad (and good too, I haven't had all bad CFIs) teachers I've had, I'm glad I'm mostly self-taught. If nothing else, it has taught me how to interpret things rather than rotely memorize certain facts. I think that makes me a stronger pilot and a stronger person in general than one who blindly follows the advice of a teacher.

Of course I learned. I learn every time I'm in an airplane. Some stuff makes me go "Hmmm..." But it doesn't register on the Gotta Know scale so it may lay dormant for a while.

You are on the brink of the attitude I described then. Everything I ever learned from a CFI was quickly investigated and proven either true or false and tucked into my bag of tricks later. I think its important to challenge your own knowledge from time to time, its the only way to truly better yourself. You're cheating yourself and your students if you consider any aviation knowledge to be below your threshold of importance.

It's not always "retarded" -- maybe they just don't want to expend the time, money, and materials to re-placard every C172180HP that is going to be replaced in another year?

That's not the issue. The issue is the definition of "extended" which would be intentionally vague.....that would mean "pilot judgment" not "flight school interpretation."

so yes. Its always "retarded" for a flight school to impose their own interpretation of a vague placard. It is CAP though, and from my experience in the CAP, this doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[dmccormack]

Key word being "minimal," and that's my point. Being a CFI doesn't automatically make you more knowledgable about any topic than a Private Pilot. Many private pilots know as much or more than CFIs.

If you go through the CFI process and don't "know more" about the fundamentals of flight, a/c performance, and the teaching/learning process than the average Private Pilot, then what's the point of requiring the rating?

No, but there is something about the CFI title that seems to make some pilots swear they're all knowing....

Again, straw man.

If Pappy Boyington took the knowledge we have now and still believed in flying the step, then yes, Pappy Boyington is a moron.

Now I get to be a moron....who the hell is Pappy Boyington?

Don't you love aviation enough to study aviation history?

(See the problem with this approach?)

You can be an excellent pilot and instructor and never know the name of the first Ace of WW2 and leader of the Black Sheep Squadron (F4U Corsairs) of Marines in the Pacific.

I place all into the "Will Kill You" area, primarily because not caring enough to learn the whys behind flying will eventually get the pilot into a bind they are incapable of understanding how to get out of. Sure, flying the step or slipping with flaps in and of itself is not really the issue, but it shows the attitude behind the pilot himself....and that is the key..

Hogwash.

I'll wager that one in five active pilots have read (and fewer comprehend) Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators. I flew for a while before I did -- and that, safely. Was I a bad pilot then and a good pilot now because now I understand how the coefficient of lift is calculated?

Seriously?

Says the man who gets paid to teach. Seriously, with as many bad (and good too, I haven't had all bad CFIs) teachers I've had, I'm glad I'm mostly self-taught. If nothing else, it has taught me how to interpret things rather than rotely memorize certain facts. I think that makes me a stronger pilot and a stronger person in general than one who blindly follows the advice of a teacher.

I hardly get "paid to teach" I get paid to be a Senior Engineer and teach as an avocation -- and trust me -- the "pay" barely covers the drive to the airport.

I'm a pretty smart guy and have taught myself plenty -- but I'm also teachable enough to learn from someone else -- even people with less credentials than me.

You are on the brink of the attitude I described then. Everything I ever learned from a CFI was quickly investigated and proven either true or false and tucked into my bag of tricks later. I think its important to challenge your own knowledge from time to time, its the only way to truly better yourself. You're cheating yourself and your students if you consider any aviation knowledge to be below your threshold of importance.

Did I say "threshold of importance?"

No -- I gave very clear categories, some critical, some not so critical.

Lean of peak ops is an area with "experts" on either side making very strong claims. I don't have the expertise to adjudicate. If a pilot or owner asks me, I will lay out what I think the views are, and perhaps the advantages, and then point to source material, but I will not say "It must be so" because it is not settled in my mind. yet I continue to fly without having positively come down on one side or the other.

Will LOP kill me? I guess in some combination of circumstances not knowing the right answer about LOP might cause some problem.

But I'm willing to take that risk.

so yes. Its always "retarded" for a flight school to impose their own interpretation of a vague placard. It is CAP though, and from my experience in the CAP, this doesn't surprise me one bit.

Look, I can beat up in CAP as well as the next guy, but carrying a chip on my shoulder because "I did my homework and you guys are all stupid because you believe that placard crap..." isn't in my tool kit.

 

[poadeleted20]

Please keep this to a discussion of the facts and leave the emotion in your pocket lest the thread need closing.

Thank you,
Your friendly Pilot Training forum moderator

 

[Trapper John]

I place all into the "Will Kill You" area, primarily because not caring enough to learn the whys behind flying will eventually get the pilot into a bind they are incapable of understanding how to get out of. Sure, flying the step or slipping with flaps in and of itself is not really the issue, but it shows the attitude behind the pilot himself....and that is the key.

What depth and breadth of knowledge is necessary?

Personally, I don't think a college-level course in thermodynamics is necessary to adjust the mixture in a light aircraft piston engine. I'm not an expert in tribology, either, but I know enough to have the right quantity and grade of oil in the engine...


Trapper John

 

[poadeleted20]

In a slip both wings are at the same angle of attack.

Not the whole wing. A slip requires some aileron input, which changes the curvature of each wing. Thus, the outer portions of the wings will have different angles of attack. This creates more drag on the wing with the lowered aileron, as well as adverse yaw into the lowered aileron. However, the rudder is held towards the lowered aileron to keep the airplane from being turned by the horizontal component of lift in the banked state. In this situation (aileron down and rudder towards the lowered aileron), the aircraft will yaw slice towards the lowered aileron at stall, resulting in the "over the top" slipped stall entry, potentially resulting in a spin if the controls are not neutralized promptly.

 

[SkyHog]

Please keep this to a discussion of the facts and leave the emotion in your pocket lest the thread need closing.

Thank you,
Your friendly Pilot Training forum moderator

I'm pretty sure we're being friendly....if Dan's getting ****ed, I'll back off, but I'm more just expressing why I feel that small issues like this are so important...I don't really care either way, since I'm not going to judge a pilot based on their CFI choice. lol

 

[SkyHog]

If you go through the CFI process and don't "know more" about the fundamentals of flight, a/c performance, and the teaching/learning process than the average Private Pilot, then what's the point of requiring the rating?

I dunno. Bragging rights? I'd have to ask the instructors I've met that have no business instructing.

Again, straw man.

Its not really a straw man, since that's what the discussion is about....whether or not pilots will blindly follow advice simply because a CFI told them something (by pilot, I mean non CFI and CFIs alike).

Don't you love aviation enough to study aviation history?

I'm trying to, I was hoping you'd get me started with a little info so I'd know where to look. Heh, I figured that'd be the response too as soon as I typed it.

You can be an excellent pilot and instructor and never know the name of the first Ace of WW2 and leader of the Black Sheep Squadron (F4U Corsairs) of Marines in the Pacific.

Yes you can. But you can be a much better pilot/instructor by taking the time to learn what he did, and how he did it.

Hogwash.

I'll wager that one in five active pilots have read (and fewer comprehend) Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators. I flew for a while before I did -- and that, safely. Was I a bad pilot then and a good pilot now because now I understand how the coefficient of lift is calculated?

No, and I never said those that don't care aren't good pilots, they're just lacking the attitude that I look for in mentors/CFIs, and that is the desire to learn everything they can about aviation and how it works. Those are the types that are most likely to give correct information to me (which I will later verify as correct).

I hardly get "paid to teach" I get paid to be a Senior Engineer and teach as an avocation -- and trust me -- the "pay" barely covers the drive to the airport.

I'm a pretty smart guy and have taught myself plenty -- but I'm also teachable enough to learn from someone else -- even people with less credentials than me.

Me too. But again, trust but verify. I just don't have the desire to jump into a plane, and then pay a decent amount of money to be given bs information for the entire time I'm flying. If a CFI doesn't want to learn, that's fine, he can be one of the sheep CFIs, but he's not going to waste my time. Credentials mean nothing. Desire to learn does (btw, I've had a good experience with a fairly new CFI where I was helping him learn some things, and he was actually willing to learn. I had no problem paying for that).

Did I say "threshold of importance?"

No -- I gave very clear categories, some critical, some not so critical.

Lean of peak ops is an area with "experts" on either side making very strong claims. I don't have the expertise to adjudicate. If a pilot or owner asks me, I will lay out what I think the views are, and perhaps the advantages, and then point to source material, but I will not say "It must be so" because it is not settled in my mind. yet I continue to fly without having positively come down on one side or the other.

Will LOP kill me? I guess in some combination of circumstances not knowing the right answer about LOP might cause some problem.

LOP itself may not kill you....and LOP is one of those tough ones that someday will probably be better known (like flying the step became later), but learning what you can about LOP means you may be able to guide the future path of the knowledge on LOP....which means you're bettering aviation knowledge. I'd say that's a pretty good thing to want to do.

But if you don't want to, that's fine. I wish all pilots/CFIs had the same desire to learn everything possible as I do....we'd be a safer bunch, IMHO.

Look, I can beat up in CAP as well as the next guy, but carrying a chip on my shoulder because "I did my homework and you guys are all stupid because you believe that placard crap..." isn't in my tool kit.

There's no chip....I dislike the CAP for other reasons (frankly, I didn't even notice the placard anyway).

The better quote is "You can believe what you're told, or you can believe what you know is true." That is most definitely in my toolkit.

BTW, Dan, Piper Arrows can jump birds/coyotes if you pop the flaps on takeoff....

How do you find out if that's accurate before you tell your buddies?

 

[dmccormack]

Me too. But again, trust but verify. I just don't have the desire to jump into a plane, and then pay a decent amount of money to be given bs information for the entire time I'm flying. If a CFI doesn't want to learn, that's fine, he can be one of the sheep CFIs, but he's not going to waste my time. Credentials mean nothing. Desire to learn does (btw, I've had a good experience with a fairly new CFI where I was helping him learn some things, and he was actually willing to learn. I had no problem paying for that).

You're confusing the instructor role with the guru/master role.

I was an Infantry Officer in the Army, and a Company Commander. within my unit there were individuals who could do each part of the infantry officer's job better than me -- in spades.

But I was in command and my job wasn't to be super-troop, but to employ their expertise to make the unit better able to accomplish all assigned missions.

I think the CFI's role is similar. You don't need 10k hours, AFNA memorized, and 10 years on the aerobatics circuit before you can be a good instructor -- you just need to be able to guide the budding aviator in his/her own journey of knowledge and skill.

Of course we should constantly be adding to our knowledge and skills, and we should always ask why?

Trust me -- I've wrung out more than one CFI with my questions.

But even though I've flown with a variety of CFIs, I still respect each one, learned from each one, and don't disparage a single one -- even if later I learned something she/he said wasn't quite right (my primary CFI insisted I use no more than 20 degrees of flaps in crosswinds, for example).

My first CFI was an absolute bonehead -- on my first landing he told me to "Open the door for more drag as we slip this thing in...."

I only flew with him 2 hours, and after spin entries (in hour 1.5) I thought, "Maybe this isn't for me..."

I gave up flying for 20 years, then pursued it again.

So yeah, there are bad apples.

But I give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, and I plan on learning something each time.

Anyway, my point is this -- and this is only my perception, FWIW: There is a fine line between arrogance -- "Since you can't explain it or don't agree with me you're a moron" -- and critical thought -- "I understand you can't explain this so I'll have to do my own research."

I sensed more of the latter in your posts, but maybe I just read wrong.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I prefer a CFI, guru, mentor (or for that matter a supervisor or manager) who doesn't have the answer to your question but is willing to admit that and search out the correct one together with you, over someone who has never questioned assumptions and perpetuates OWTs or bad information, or worse makes crap up, I don't care how experienced they are.

When I teach a class I tell the attendees that we are embarking on a journey together whether it be for the next four hours or four weeks. It sounds corny to most folks probably but some people get it.

I don't need "street cred" in a CFI. I just need plain 'ole "cred", and there are 10,000k+ hour ex-military ex-commercial ex-bush pilots acting as CFI's who just don't have credibility as teachers.

 

[SkyHog]

I prefer a CFI, guru, mentor (or for that matter a supervisor or manager) who doesn't have the answer to your question but is willing to admit that and search out the correct one together with you, over someone who has never questioned assumptions and perpetuates OWTs or bad information, or worse makes crap up, I don't care how experienced they are.

When I teach a class I tell the attendees that we are embarking on a journey together whether it be for the next four hours or four weeks. It sounds corny to most folks probably but some people get it.

I don't need "street cred" in a CFI. I just need plain 'ole "cred", and there are 10,000k+ hour ex-military ex-commercial ex-bush pilots acting as CFI's who just don't have credibility as teachers.

Thank you. This pretty much sums up every "don't always trust the CFI" post I've made in the last year or so.