Important aspects of flying (outside of passing the checkride) that a pilot should learn for PP.

[MauleSkinner]

i thought that until I bought a 6-tank Bonanza. With the original single fuel gauge and selector, it's easy to how a pilot could inadvertently dump good fuel out the left main vent, or end up dead-sticking with fuel still on board.

How Would that not be poor ADM?

 

[Rene]

i thought that until I bought a 6-tank Bonanza. With the original single fuel gauge and selector, it's easy to see how a pilot could inadvertently dump good fuel out the left main vent, or end up dead-sticking with fuel still on board.

What did the A-4 guy* say about adding simplicity?

It's a door AND a stall warning flapper!

*Edit: Ed Heinemann.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

For traffic pattern stall/spin accidents I think situational awareness is lost due to task saturation. There can be many reasons for this, dealing with passengers, an issue with the aircraft, looking for traffic, etc. Once task saturation occurs the pilot isn't going to pick up the queues of an impending stall including any stall warning. The stall occurs, a wing drops and the natural impulse due to the surprise is to apply opposite aileron and then the spin starts resulting in the accident.

OK. I can buy that... But the other very good explanation I've heard for pattern stall-spin accidents is this: First, that it's much harder to recover from a skidded spin entry, and that many/most CFIs tell students to limit their bank angle to 20 or 30 degrees in the pattern (to avoid an accelerated stall, but there's often no mention of that) and then when someone inevitably overshoots final, they get to their bank angle limit and try to tighten up the turn with rudder and elevator so they don't "bank too much" and boom... And that, IMO, is a result of bad training. WHY is it a bad idea to go to a higher bank angle when turning final, WHY might it be a bad idea to overshoot final in some situations (such as parallel runways), WHY a skidding turn is an even worse idea, HOW to recover from mistakes made on base in the safest way possible... All must be taught, and if they are properly taught in a way that makes them memorable, that student will be among the group that recognizes things before they put all the links in the chain.

Even for the task saturation scenario you describe, I think training people to ignore pax at critical stages (and brief them so they're less likely to be a problem in the first place), and if they get to the point of feeling saturated that maybe going around early is a better way to deal with it than continuing the approach to the point of a loss of control. Sure, it can still happen, but one good memorable flight lesson can have a big impact.

For inadvertent flight into IMC, high DA and fuel exhaustion accidents I think this is 100% poor ADM. I think the current PTS cover these topics and pilots are adequately trained and tested on how to avoid these accidents. Unfortunately some pilots will either ignore the training or make mistakes.

Fuel exhaustion, definitely poor ADM... And I'm sure every CFI talks about it, and every DPE is testing on it. I think two things that would help this are to practice deviating from a plan, and to learn how to fuel an airplane at a self serve pump. It seems like get-there-itis and the type-A "Plan A is the only plan" personalities can be problematic, but there seem to be far too many people who fly past airports with 24-hour self serve fuel only to crash short of their destination, and I think a lot of that is that they have no experience with, nor clue about, how to fuel an airplane themselves.

For high DA, well, it's only talked about. It really needs to be experienced. Throw another person or two in the back seat, maybe some ballast to get up to MGW, and take it up to 8, 10, 12 thousand feet. Simulate a takeoff from a high elevation airfield, with a minimum climb gradient. That kind of thing isn't done.

For IMC, some of it is likely caused by "plan A all the way" type thinking and that could also benefit from practicing deviations. I don't think anyone flies into a cloud they can see from miles away on purpose, they likely are getting sucked in by things getting a little worse but "It looks like it might be better ahead" and just continuing into a situation until it becomes unrecoverable. Personal minimums are definitely talked about during training, but I think in a fashion that's a bit too simplistic. If you make a personal minimum of "3000 AGL ceiling" that's hard and fast, you run into "Well, I'm only flying to that airport 20 miles away, 2500 feet is plenty" and it becomes a normalization of deviance thing. A FRAT is probably a better idea, but that's a lot harder to explain and implement and there's plenty of CFIs out there who have never seen one themselves.

So, there's certainly training that *can* be done. It's a matter of accomplishing it in such a way that it doesn't add too much extra cost yet is effective and memorable.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

How Would that not be poor ADM?

Poor transition training into the type and a pilot who isn't necessarily aware of the pitfalls of a particular aircraft's systems.

 

[MountainDude]

OK. I can buy that... But the other very good explanation I've heard for pattern stall-spin accidents is this: First, that it's much harder to recover from a skidded spin entry, and that many/most CFIs tell students to limit their bank angle to 20 or 30 degrees in the pattern (to avoid an accelerated stall, but there's often no mention of that) and then when someone inevitably overshoots final, they get to their bank angle limit and try to tighten up the turn with rudder and elevator so they don't "bank too much" and boom... And that, IMO, is a result of bad training. WHY is it a bad idea to go to a higher bank angle when turning final, WHY might it be a bad idea to overshoot final in some situations (such as parallel runways), WHY a skidding turn is an even worse idea, HOW to recover from mistakes made on base in the safest way possible... All must be taught, and if they are properly taught in a way that makes them memorable, that student will be among the group that recognizes things before they put all the links in the chain.

Even for the task saturation scenario you describe, I think training people to ignore pax at critical stages (and brief them so they're less likely to be a problem in the first place), and if they get to the point of feeling saturated that maybe going around early is a better way to deal with it than continuing the approach to the point of a loss of control. Sure, it can still happen, but one good memorable flight lesson can have a big impact.

Fuel exhaustion, definitely poor ADM... And I'm sure every CFI talks about it, and every DPE is testing on it. I think two things that would help this are to practice deviating from a plan, and to learn how to fuel an airplane at a self serve pump. It seems like get-there-itis and the type-A "Plan A is the only plan" personalities can be problematic, but there seem to be far too many people who fly past airports with 24-hour self serve fuel only to crash short of their destination, and I think a lot of that is that they have no experience with, nor clue about, how to fuel an airplane themselves.

For high DA, well, it's only talked about. It really needs to be experienced. Throw another person or two in the back seat, maybe some ballast to get up to MGW, and take it up to 8, 10, 12 thousand feet. Simulate a takeoff from a high elevation airfield, with a minimum climb gradient. That kind of thing isn't done.

For IMC, some of it is likely caused by "plan A all the way" type thinking and that could also benefit from practicing deviations. I don't think anyone flies into a cloud they can see from miles away on purpose, they likely are getting sucked in by things getting a little worse but "It looks like it might be better ahead" and just continuing into a situation until it becomes unrecoverable. Personal minimums are definitely talked about during training, but I think in a fashion that's a bit too simplistic. If you make a personal minimum of "3000 AGL ceiling" that's hard and fast, you run into "Well, I'm only flying to that airport 20 miles away, 2500 feet is plenty" and it becomes a normalization of deviance thing. A FRAT is probably a better idea, but that's a lot harder to explain and implement and there's plenty of CFIs out there who have never seen one themselves.

So, there's certainly training that *can* be done. It's a matter of accomplishing it in such a way that it doesn't add too much extra cost yet is effective and memorable.

Very good points from both of you. Thank you.

 

[MackMooney]

Here are things that I think the system should extra emphasize to the private pilots. Extra emphasis would mean multiple times, using videos, articles, real examples of accidents, and actual flying. I think someone should write an article about these topics, which we (CFIs, this forum, AOPA, EAA...) can then recommend to all new pilots.
Please add yours if you'd like:

1. Flying into IMC:
- Show student pilots what happens (and how quickly) if you fly into IMC (there are youtube videos).
- Emphasize they can always deviate to avoid clouds, even if they do not have time to get a vector from ATC. They should try to inform the ATC before they do it, but it's not a requirement if they are too busy.
- Ensure you get a weather briefing every single XC flight. Even if everything looks good, getting a second opinion from a briefer is better, and it only takes a few minutes.
- Emphasize that VFR at night has a higher risk of flying into IMC.
2. How higher elevation airports affect plane ops:
- Must lean the engine for best performance (NA engines)
- How DA degrades climb performance of an NA engine
3. Slow and uncoordinated flight in the pattern:
- Go over several scenarios, especially with strong crosswinds and base-to-final turns
4. Fuel burn goes by time and not distance. Have a reliable way to know your fuel burn, or be super conservative.
5. Experience plane performance at gross weight and/or with aft CG, and emphasize how it gets worse over gross and at higher DAs

these were all covered during my ppl, #1 the cfi demonstrated by actually flying into IMC.

 

[idahoflier]

i thought that until I bought a 6-tank Bonanza. With the original single fuel gauge and selector, it's easy to see how a pilot could inadvertently dump good fuel out the left main vent, or end up dead-sticking with fuel still on board.

I don't have any experience with a complex system like that. Wouldn't the SOP be to be continuously monitoring the available fuel in all the tanks and if something doesn't look right then divert?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't have any experience with a complex system like that. Wouldn't the SOP be to be continuously monitoring the available fuel in all the tanks and if something doesn't look right then divert?

"continuously monitoring" with a single gauge is kinda difficult. Even those that have multiple/switchable gauges (where you may have two gauges for six tanks for example) aren't particularly conducive to continuous monitoring.

"Know thy airplane" is always a good idea, though.

 

[idahoflier]

OK. I can buy that... But the other very good explanation I've heard for pattern stall-spin accidents is this: First, that it's much harder to recover from a skidded spin entry, and that many/most CFIs tell students to limit their bank angle to 20 or 30 degrees in the pattern (to avoid an accelerated stall, but there's often no mention of that) and then when someone inevitably overshoots final, they get to their bank angle limit and try to tighten up the turn with rudder and elevator so they don't "bank too much" and boom... And that, IMO, is a result of bad training. WHY is it a bad idea to go to a higher bank angle when turning final, WHY might it be a bad idea to overshoot final in some situations (such as parallel runways), WHY a skidding turn is an even worse idea, HOW to recover from mistakes made on base in the safest way possible... All must be taught, and if they are properly taught in a way that makes them memorable, that student will be among the group that recognizes things before they put all the links in the chain.

I don't think a stall/spin in the traffic pattern is survivable in the vast majority of incidents, if any. I think the other scenarios you mention above are still a result of losing situational awareness. Above all, fly the airplane. If students aren't being taught this and/or it isn't being reinforced on every flight review then I would see the value of getting it incorporated into training.

Even for the task saturation scenario you describe, I think training people to ignore pax at critical stages (and brief them so they're less likely to be a problem in the first place), and if they get to the point of feeling saturated that maybe going around early is a better way to deal with it than continuing the approach to the point of a loss of control. Sure, it can still happen, but one good memorable flight lesson can have a big impact.

Agree.

Fuel exhaustion, definitely poor ADM... And I'm sure every CFI talks about it, and every DPE is testing on it. I think two things that would help this are to practice deviating from a plan, and to learn how to fuel an airplane at a self serve pump. It seems like get-there-itis and the type-A "Plan A is the only plan" personalities can be problematic, but there seem to be far too many people who fly past airports with 24-hour self serve fuel only to crash short of their destination, and I think a lot of that is that they have no experience with, nor clue about, how to fuel an airplane themselves.

Fueling an aircraft was covered in my primary training. If there are pilots that don't know how to fuel their aircraft, well, that is indeed a gaping hole in training.

For high DA, well, it's only talked about. It really needs to be experienced. Throw another person or two in the back seat, maybe some ballast to get up to MGW, and take it up to 8, 10, 12 thousand feet. Simulate a takeoff from a high elevation airfield, with a minimum climb gradient. That kind of thing isn't done.

I agree to truly appreciate high DA ops, there is no substitute for experience. But I don't think your scenario above adequately demonstrates it. In any case, I think it still comes down to ADM, particularly when it comes to proper planning for aircraft performance and terrain. A pilot can use performance charts to determine takeoff, landing distances, rate of climb, etc. So many accidents could have been avoided just by taking time to review the performance charts.

For IMC, some of it is likely caused by "plan A all the way" type thinking and that could also benefit from practicing deviations. I don't think anyone flies into a cloud they can see from miles away on purpose, they likely are getting sucked in by things getting a little worse but "It looks like it might be better ahead" and just continuing into a situation until it becomes unrecoverable. Personal minimums are definitely talked about during training, but I think in a fashion that's a bit too simplistic. If you make a personal minimum of "3000 AGL ceiling" that's hard and fast, you run into "Well, I'm only flying to that airport 20 miles away, 2500 feet is plenty" and it becomes a normalization of deviance thing. A FRAT is probably a better idea, but that's a lot harder to explain and implement and there's plenty of CFIs out there who have never seen one themselves.

I think normalization of deviance has a lot to do with it as well as an invulnerability complex. But I don't see that more training will influence individuals with these traits.

So, there's certainly training that *can* be done. It's a matter of accomplishing it in such a way that it doesn't add too much extra cost yet is effective and memorable.

Maybe? I still think existing training is adequate to avoid the accidents in question, but if there's a better way to train pilots I'm all for it...

 

[MauleSkinner]

IMO, that’s an oversimplification. Task saturation dealing with other issues can result in a late tank selection swap, which can in turn result in fuel being dumped out the vent tube. It’s more than just planning and ADM, it’s a timing issue that can pop up mid-flight.

If you’re too task saturated to deal with fuel and you’re continuing flight, you’ve got an ADM problem.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What he said^^^.

With the fuel-injected Bonanzas, there are several complications that force you to use unusual techniques to manage fuel:
1) Single gauge with a selector switch to show each tank. My plane has an aftermarket multi-tank gauge, but most do not.
2) The 2 aux tanks can only be used in level flight, so that they draw evenly from both sides simultaneously. If you try to use them during any sort of maneuvers, you end up with an imbalance that you can't easily address in flight.
3) When pulling from any tank other than the left main, you get about 10 gal/hour of pressure return fed back into the left main. If you run too long on any of the other 5 tanks, you can end up over-filling the left main, at which point that 10 gal/hour starts going out the vent tube.

In effect, you take off pulling from left main, burn some fuel, switch to another tank (right main), and the left main refills from than tank while you're drawing from it. Burn some more from the left main, then switch to a different tank (auxes), which refills the left main again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I have read/heard that some of the C310 fuel systems with extended range tanks are even more complex than the Bonanza setup.

If that’s too complex for you, you’re in the wrong airplane.

 

[MauleSkinner]

You can say that, but do a quick search on fuel management as an accident cause. It's far too common in certain models.

[http://thomaspturner.net/Fuel.htm]

Yes, perhaps we all "should" be able to handle a more complex fuel system, but the evidence is clear that when it becomes more complex more mistakes happen, often with very bad outcomes.

So fuel management accidents are acceptable in certain airplanes?

To me it simply says you’re not the only one in the wrong airplane.

 

[Tantalum]

Flying into IMC

I agree whole heartedly. I take my students into IMC at least once at some point during their training.. usually towards the end or right after earning their PPL.. foggles are a disgrace tbh. Mostly a physical annoyance than a real simulation of flying in the clouds

But I'll take your thread a step further. Things I wish I learned:

(1) how to buy gas, either self serve, or what the etiquette is at a full service FBO

(2) in general, "real cross country" flying.. going 50.1 nm is hardly the same as going 250+
--wx
--maintenance
--lodging
--choosing the right airport/fbo/alternates

(3) more time going through Bravo

(4) more time flying into "real" airports.. Charlie for instance
--going from your little untowered airport or class D to a "real" airport can be daunting

(5) challenges/risks flying at night or over the water or mountains
--how to mitigate these
--right plane for right mission

(6) how to rent a car / use Turo
--sounds silly, but you fly some place new and if you haven't planned for this you're effectively stranded at the airport

The stuff above "is (mostly) taught" (depending on how good your CFI is) but it's also mostly theoretical. People are on a budget and yeah yeah $$$-just-get-me-my-1500-so-I-can-go-to-an-airline but just checking off the 61.109 boxes hardly makes you proficient in my opinion.. if you move straight to IFR and comm then you'll learn a lot of this along the way there too. But for those who just want their private and have no future plans they're at risk of being left with a lot of gaps

 

[Tantalum]

es, perhaps we all "should" be able to handle a more complex fuel system, but the evidence is clear that when it becomes more complex more mistakes happen, often with very bad outcomes

You guys are both right. One of the reasons I find the 172 abhorrent as it teaches lazy flying. But leaving that aside.. systems knowledge in general is lacking. When I do flight review I'm surprised by how little knowledge people have out there on their basic systems. Ask most weekend warriors how a mag works or what it does and they go to pieces. To the point on Bonanzas (really anything that doesn't have a both*) that also comes down to competent and effective transition training..

*for.. some older 172 have a placard to NOT use both over 5K AGL...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Great discussion @idahoflier, thank you.

Fueling an aircraft was covered in my primary training. If there are pilots that don't know how to fuel their aircraft, well, that is indeed a gaping hole in training.

I think it is generally covered only in situations where renters need to refuel the planes at least part of the time, and that most FBOs with a fuel truck don't bother.

Personally, I was in the latter situation, but as a former lineman I'd fueled plenty of planes. And there seem to be a LOT of people who don't know how and/or aren't comfortable with it. It's not in the PTS/ACS at any level, so it's frequently left out of training.

I agree to truly appreciate high DA ops, there is no substitute for experience. But I don't think your scenario above adequately demonstrates it.

It doesn't, but it comes as close as you can to not requiring a trip to the Rockies. They'll at least be able to feel the mushy controls and see with their own eyes the terrible performance.

So many accidents could have been avoided just by taking time to review the performance charts.

Yes, but I think lots of pilots pretty much never look at them after a checkride. You can fly a thousand flights without ever using them in most areas of the country, but then when you get invited to do something cool or take your family on a neat trip to a place where you really need those charts, it's not habit to look at them, and if you didn't look at them prior to departing on the trip now you have a bunch of pressure from others and a "go-itis" scenario.

I think the demo is worthwhile if only to emphasize that when things start getting hot and high, those charts need to come out.

I think normalization of deviance has a lot to do with it as well as an invulnerability complex. But I don't see that more training will influence individuals with these traits.

Normalization of deviance isn't something that can be taught in flight - That's a ground lesson all to itself. It's not a thing I remember being talked about in any of my training or hearing about in the first several years of flying, and it's definitely something that could have killed me eventually. I think I would have benefited from learning about it in primary training.

Maybe? I still think existing training is adequate to avoid the accidents in question, but if there's a better way to train pilots I'm all for it...

I'm starting to think about putting together a "flying 102" course in addition to a complete ground school and a bunch of other things, but I'll realistically probably never find the time to finish it. (Sigh.)

I have read/heard that some of the C310 fuel systems with extended range tanks are even more complex than the Bonanza setup.

Yes and no. They suffer from some of the same drawbacks, but it's all about knowing where that return fuel is going and ensuring there's room for it. One bit of extra complexity on the 310 and many other twins is that you can't always feed both engines from any tank.

 

[Matthew]

My PP CFI put me through a lot of things. One of my favorite flights was at night, partial panel, under the hood, 30 minutes or so of unusual attitude recovery. Then, “Using the instruments you have, figure out where we are, find the nearest airport, and take us there. Tell me when we’re there and I’ll let you take the Foggles off and see how well you did.” I dialed in a couple of VORs (no GPS) and followed a radial until I got an intersection and said, “OK, we’re here.” I turned on the PCL, took off the Foggles, and couldn’t see the airport. It was directly under me. That felt pretty cool.

The other lesson that has always stuck with me was one of many “engine out” scenarios. She pulled the power and said, “OK, now what?” Pretty simple - do the ABC checklist and line up to land at the airport right in front of me. What she knew, and what I didn’t know, was that I couldn’t reach it. I didn’t realize I was trying to stretch the glide until I took one last glance at my airspeed indicator and realized I would have ended up having a bad day about 50’ short of the rwy if I hadn’t made that check (and had my CFI not been looking out for me).

Fueling was an issue, the FBO always wanted the line guys to do it and didn’t want students doing it on their own. The self serve pumps were pretty far from the FBO and their fuel truck was always right there. I think I got one chance during training. After my checkride I stopped on a short XC and was going to top off the 172 so I could get the DIY fueling experience. But the airport manager stopped his mower and walked over to chat. He started to refuel for me, just to be helpful. I explained what I was wanting to do and he talked me through the whole process.

Good times.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Yes, I'll probably die next week because I'm am idiot. [/sarcasm]

Are you capable of writing a post without issuing insults and generally being an *******?

I get that carrying on an academic-style discussion of risk factors may be beyond your intellectual capacity, but that’s no excuse for the insults and invective that you sling at other posters.

I’d suggest not doubling down on defending ignorance or lack of proficiency.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Nuff said. Onto the ignore list you go.