My student got lost...

[douglas393]

I am amazed where this thread has gone. Personally, I think the exercise that Jesse described should be done by all CFI's to their students for PPL. That being said I do question the long use of the hood. It seems to me that there may be a little too much training to fly by instruments. I had three hours of hood training for my PPL but much of it was upset atitude training. I still believe that the training for PPL concerning the hood should be if you inadvertantly go IMC is to get out of it ASAP. I was taught to use my autopilot for this and do a 180. Learning to do that 180 without the autopilot was also done in case the autopilot went on the fritz. However, I am not sure of reason doing a 30 minute straight and level flight or even a flight with turns and altitude changes as part of PPL training. To me this would just encourage someone to worsen their situation. IMC flying is much more than can be taught in PPL.

That being said, if I was that lost I agree I would not be flying around checking out water towers to find my position. As stated before increase altitude, circling, calling for help with ATC, as well as using any instruments in my plane that can help me, be it a GPS, a VOR, or anything else I can use is what I would do. If all else fails I am landing at the closest airport or big field I can find. If that happens to get me in trouble with the FAA, well then I will deal with it, but at least I am alive. If I bend my airplane well thats what insurance is for, but at least I am alive. How many people have lost their lives flying because they flew over perfectly fine landing areas looking for something.

Doug

 

[Everskyward]

It's my understanding, the 430 went black. If the only Nav in the plane, was in the 430, then you also lost VOR.

The airplane had another VOR. What kind of equipment does the airplane you fly have?

2.) He is actually pretty damn good with a VOR and could have used that to find his fix within 30 seconds or so. For some reason he was thinking that the Nav 2 VOR was dead since the 430 was dead. He knew the systems -- but just let the situation distract him from thinking and trying things
Another day in the life of a part-time flight instructor

 

[dukeblue219]

If your flying, and all the sudden your 430 went out in your plane. Then you check your iPhone and iPad, and get nothing. Is all you are going to think is you lost GPS?

The reason those devices stopped working is of no concern?

I'm not sure people are arguing that the devices all went dead at the same time. I mean, if your aircraft electrical system goes out and all your portable stuff does too (as in completely dead) then something weird has happened and maybe you should land to avoid the mushroom cloud that's off your right wing. But, I think the more realistic scenario folks are concerned about is a (common) GPS outage which you better believe would affect all of your devices.

Having multiple GPS's provides redundancy only for the physical operation of the devices and not for the GPS constellation. I have seen first hand that it can happen, when the 430 loses signal ( not just RAIM ) and my iPad went out at the same time. Both came back in a few minutes. It wouldn't matter how many GPS's you have when there's a system/military test or atmospheric anomaly or ground-based interference or whatever. None of your GPS's will work. Personally, I hope you'd be aware of the scheduled ones through NOTAMs, but even the transient errors do not remotely cross the threshold of precautionary landing for me.

Frankly, this topic is kind of getting beaten to death here, but just understand , Mafoo, that most posters here have your best interests at heart. They aren't just old salts who think you need to do it the hard way because that's how they did it. They just appreciate that knowing how to do it the old way may either save your butt one day, or may come in handy as a backup, or if nothing else, will teach you more about decision making and problem solving.

Fly around enough and you WILL encounter GPS outages.

 

[ja_user]

In the setup, he was under the hood for 30 minutes. He could not follow along. The primary error here, is the student did not look at his compas to reset the gauges. Thanks to this thread, I will never do that .

Here is a way you can realistically get in this senerio.. YOu climb up and go VFR over the top for a while, watching the magenta line and looking at the clouds. YOu are only 1000ft above them, so there are holes but everything ahead of you looks solid..

Now your GPS fails (or more likely is inaccurate), you find a hole, circle down, and have no idea where you are...


Here is some minimal advise from another low time guy (about 250 hours)
People really do get lost, or at least have no idea where they are at points in time.
You really do need to be prepared for GPS failures, it does happen. The only difference is an IFR GPS will tell you RAIM Failure, where your VFR only ones will just take you in the wrong direction or lose signal.
Electrical failures happen as well, and Ipads/Iphones don't last forever on those batterys.

In my primary training I learned to always use two points of navigation, doesn't matter which two. VOR, GPS, Pilotage, whatever.. But always follow along on the map.

I lost GPS and VOR on my first Solo XC, and I fixed the issue (damn generator toggle switch) and found my airport just find.

In 250 hours, I would bet that I have had 4-5 electrical failures. Some caught before systems shut off, some not..

I do carry one VFR GPS in my bag charged, but rarely get it out. I also carry and ipad with foreflight (primarily for IFR charts). However I always fly like it could fail at any moment, and sometimes it does..

 

[MBDiagMan]

You're a GOOD instructor Jesse!

 

[flyingmoose]

I am amazed where this thread has gone. Personally, I think the exercise that Jesse described should be done by all CFI's to their students for PPL. That being said I do question the long use of the hood. It seems to me that there may be a little too much training to fly by instruments. I had three hours of hood training for my PPL but much of it was upset atitude training. I still believe that the training for PPL concerning the hood should be if you inadvertantly go IMC is to get out of it ASAP. I was taught to use my autopilot for this and do a 180. Learning to do that 180 without the autopilot was also done in case the autopilot went on the fritz. However, I am not sure of reason doing a 30 minute straight and level flight or even a flight with turns and altitude changes as part of PPL training. To me this would just encourage someone to worsen their situation. IMC flying is much more than can be taught in PPL.

That being said, if I was that lost I agree I would not be flying around checking out water towers to find my position. As stated before increase altitude, circling, calling for help with ATC, as well as using any instruments in my plane that can help me, be it a GPS, a VOR, or anything else I can use is what I would do. If all else fails I am landing at the closest airport or big field I can find. If that happens to get me in trouble with the FAA, well then I will deal with it, but at least I am alive. If I bend my airplane well thats what insurance is for, but at least I am alive. How many people have lost their lives flying because they flew over perfectly fine landing areas looking for something.

Doug

1.) Nothing wrong with extra hood time. (I think it was setup time!)
2.) What if you don't have an autopilot? Hand flying will always be there.
3.) So you would rather land in a field if lost than look at a water tower?
It might sound silly but its a landmark.

 

[Mafoo]

The airplane had another VOR. What kind of equipment does the airplane you fly have?

Mine has two. Jesse, if I used the VOR on NAV2, would you have failed it?

 

[douglas393]

1.) Nothing wrong with extra hood time. (I think it was setup time!).

I agree hood time is good, but I am not sure I understand the reason to spend thirty minutes flying in "IMC" conditions while learning PPL. I would think a better use of this time would be to learn how to ge out of the soup which is typically doing a 180. I think for some students the take home message could be if I find myself in unexpected IMC I have the ability to continue straight ahead.

2.) What if you don't have an autopilot? Hand flying will always be there.

I hope I did not insinuate that I that I do not feel and flying is important. Pesonally I believe the opposite. When I did my PPL I barely use the autopilot (in fact I am not sure I ever did). When I did my IFR I did 95% of it by hand and still do. In fact I have probably spent more time on my IFR checkride using autopilot then any other time. I believe what I said and certainly what I meant to say was if I found myself in unexpected IMC I would use my autopilot to get me out of there if I had one, and if not I would hand fly it. If I did not have autopilot then well it is a moot point. I think however for the average PPL student and PPL pilot using the autopilot to get out of IMC is probably going to be safer than hand flying it.[/QUOTE]

3.) So you would rather land in a field if lost than look at a water tower?
It might sound silly but its a landmark.

No what I said was if I was still hopelessly lost despite using everything at my disposal including pilotage of which using landmarks which water towers are I would not spend time getting more hopelessly lost and possibly in a worse condition if I found an airport or someplace I could land safely. I certainly would not be looking only for water towers to help me. I would use everything and anything at my disposal. Certainly, if time and conditions permitted it to be done safely I would spend as much time trying to extricate myself from the situation I found myself in but I think if after a suffiecient enough time(how long would depend on the situation I guess) I could not figure out where I was landing would certainly be a better option.

Doug

 

[jesse]

I agree hood time is good, but I am not sure I understand the reason to spend thirty minutes flying in "IMC" conditions while learning PPL. I would think a better use of this time would be to learn how to ge out of the soup which is typically doing a 180. I think for some students the take home message could be if I find myself in unexpected IMC I have the ability to continue straight ahead.

The PPL certificate requires 3 hours of instrument training on:

(3) 3 hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, radio communications, and the use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services appropriate to instrument flight;

How do you think someone is going to get 3 hours of training if you don't have them fly at least 30 minute sessions? I also need to log in the students logbook that they received training on the above items. That means more than just doing 180 degree turns non-stop for 3 hours.

Doing a 180 is certainly something I cover during a student's simulated instrument training...along with a bunch of other stuff.

 

[MAKG1]

managed to get myself into some place where GPS doesn't work (often times, not a place you should be),

I think you need to get a weather briefing for a flight out west and see what these NOTAMs look like.

Most of the time, these "places you shouldn't be" are things like anyplace within 400 miles of Ridgecrest, CA. That covers much of four states, and most of it is not restricted airspace. There isn't any prohibited airspace in the southwest.

 

[MAKG1]

That means more than just doing 180 degree turns non-stop for 3 hours.

I know a way to be even more evil. Spend that 30 minutes doing upset recovery. The victim^H^H^H^H^H^H student will have a hard time telling the blue stuff from the brown stuff after that.

And it is unquestionably useful.

 

[douglas393]

The PPL certificate requires 3 hours of instrument training on:

How do you think someone is going to get 3 hours of training if you don't have them fly at least 30 minute sessions? I also need to log in the students logbook that they received training on the above items. That means more than just doing 180 degree turns non-stop for 3 hours.

Doing a 180 is certainly something I cover during a student's simulated instrument training...along with a bunch of other stuff.

I know the regs. I also know that I did not spend 30 minutes flying straight and level under the hood during my PPL nor did I do 180 degree turns non stop for three hours. I did a lot of other things including quite a bit of upset atitudes, turns, ascents, descents, etc. However, if I understand it correctly the reason for hood training during PPL is so that you get into IMC you know how to get yourself out safely and quickly. It is not to become IFR trained. I do not see how doing thirty minutes of straight and level flying under the hood accomplishes that. I would think that 5 or 10 minutes of straight and level flying and 20 minutes of unusual attitudes, climbs, descents, and turns would a better use of that time. I think (and if I am putting words in your mouth I am sorry) part of the reason you did that was to get the student "hopelessly lost" which was the point of the exercise. Again, I think the exercise is great, but I wobder if you could have used those thirty minutes of "getting lost" more constructively for the student. I do not know. I am only a commercial student, and by no means am trying to criticized your twaching methods, and as I said before I wish my instructor did some of this to me during my training.

Doug

 

[LJS1993]

Here is a way you can realistically get in this senerio.. YOu climb up and go VFR over the top for a while, watching the magenta line and looking at the clouds. YOu are only 1000ft above them, so there are holes but everything ahead of you looks solid..

Now your GPS fails (or more likely is inaccurate), you find a hole, circle down, and have no idea where you are...


Here is some minimal advise from another low time guy (about 250 hours)
People really do get lost, or at least have no idea where they are at points in time.
You really do need to be prepared for GPS failures, it does happen. The only difference is an IFR GPS will tell you RAIM Failure, where your VFR only ones will just take you in the wrong direction or lose signal.
Electrical failures happen as well, and Ipads/Iphones don't last forever on those batterys.

In my primary training I learned to always use two points of navigation, doesn't matter which two. VOR, GPS, Pilotage, whatever.. But always follow along on the map.

I lost GPS and VOR on my first Solo XC, and I fixed the issue (damn generator toggle switch) and found my airport just find.

In 250 hours, I would bet that I have had 4-5 electrical failures. Some caught before systems shut off, some not..

I do carry one VFR GPS in my bag charged, but rarely get it out. I also carry and ipad with foreflight (primarily for IFR charts). However I always fly like it could fail at any moment, and sometimes it does..

Wow four to five electrical failures?!?!?! I think this says more about your aircraft then it does anything else.

 

[flyersfan31]

I wish I had the last 5 minutes of my life back.

 

[milestogo]

I have a real problem with these artificially induced scenarios. It happened on my PPL check-ride (which I passed). It started to go downhill when he told me to fly up to the clouds the check how high they were. As it broke VFR minimums I refused and he grabbled the controls from me and flew up to the base of the clouds. Jerk.

He put me under the hood for a while and got me lost in the everglades. Then he failed my GPS and VOR and asked me to fly direct to Pompano which is under a class C shelf and in between Ft Lauderdale Exec and Boca - a difficult find. In the REAL world I would never attempt that the way he wanted. I would simply fly north to the antennas and west to Lantana or northwest to Okeechobee and land at PHK which is easily identifiable.

But he insisted I find it and fly now direct. So I dialed up tower and requested vectors which were refused. The tower suggested I get familiar with the area before flying there which also irked me. In the REAL world if I absolutely had to land at Pompano (I don't see why, see above) I would tell them I had a complete navigation failure but I didn't think that was something should do given this was a simulation. I did my best and almost violated FXE airspace before I recognized FXE, turned north, found Pompano and landed.

Any instructor that simulates these artificial situations should at least allow the student to act in an appropriate real world manner. If I knew then what I know now, I would have just done the right thing and dared him to fail me. It started to go bad when he violated VFR minimums flying up to the cloud base. To this day I think he is an unprofessional #@*. But I passed. My landings were perfect that day.

 

[jesse]

I know the regs. I also know that I did not spend 30 minutes flying straight and level under the hood during my PPL nor did I do 180 degree turns non stop for three hours. I did a lot of other things including quite a bit of upset atitudes, turns, ascents, descents, etc. However, if I understand it correctly the reason for hood training during PPL is so that you get into IMC you know how to get yourself out safely and quickly. It is not to become IFR trained. I do not see how doing thirty minutes of straight and level flying under the hood accomplishes that. I would think that 5 or 10 minutes of straight and level flying and 20 minutes of unusual attitudes, climbs, descents, and turns would a better use of that time. I think (and if I am putting words in your mouth I am sorry) part of the reason you did that was to get the student "hopelessly lost" which was the point of the exercise. Again, I think the exercise is great, but I wobder if you could have used those thirty minutes of "getting lost" more constructively for the student. I do not know. I am only a commercial student, and by no means am trying to criticized your twaching methods, and as I said before I wish my instructor did some of this to me during my training.

Doug

Did you read my original post? We didn't just fly straight and level for 30 minutes. We turned to many headings I just kept the average of them going in one direction. We did five or six unusual attitudes. We did a lot -- because I was trying to make it unlikely that he'd know our average direction even if he were paying attention to the compass because I wanted the end result to be the student lost.

I am at the "rubber meets the road" stage with this particular student. I'm trying to make things hard, push him, watch him crack and see how he recovers from that. This stuff isn't supposed to be easy.

 

[douglas393]

I have a real problem with these artificially induced scenarios. It happened on my PPL check-ride (which I passed). It started to go downhill when he told me to fly up to the clouds the check how high they were. As it broke VFR minimums I refused and he grabbled the controls from me and flew up to the base of the clouds. Jerk.

He put me under the hood for a while and got me lost in the everglades. Then he failed my GPS and VOR and asked me to fly direct to Pompano which is under a class C shelf and in between Ft Lauderdale Exec and Boca - a difficult find. In the REAL world I would never attempt that the way he wanted. I would simply fly north to the antennas and west to Lantana or northwest to Okeechobee and land at PHK which is easily identifiable.

But he insisted I find it and fly now direct. So I dialed up tower and requested vectors which were refused. The tower suggested I get familiar with the area before flying there which also irked me. In the REAL world if I absolutely had to land at Pompano (I don't see why, see above) I would tell them I had a complete navigation failure but I didn't think that was something should do given this was a simulation. I did my best and almost violated FXE airspace before I recognized FXE, turned north, found Pompano and landed.

Any instructor that simulates these artificial situations should at least allow the student to act in an appropriate real world manner. If I knew then what I know now, I would have just done the right thing and dared him to fail me. It started to go bad when he violated VFR minimums flying up to the cloud base. To this day I think he is an unprofessional #@*. But I passed. My landings were perfect that day.

I fly the PGD to PMP route at least onec a month. I may have missed something but I believe it is just outside the shelf. The big problem is its proximity to FXE more so than BCT. I am surprised the tower gave you a hard time and did not recommend to call ATC, (though I probably would have first called Miami ATC and asked for flight following and told them I had equipment failure, no VOR, or GPS and needed vectors to PMP.) This would have eliminated all of the problems. If you called the tower my guess is the could not give you vectors because they do not have that ability given they do not have radar.

In any case, sitting in my office behind a computer, makes saying what I would do a lot easier than if I was actually flying.

I took my PPL on a day with clouds very low and almost cancelled it. My DPE convinced me to try it anyhow, and it actually was a great experience. I learned more about flying that day than almost any other day prior to that. I used the same one for my IFR checkride and same experience in terms of learning. Too bad that day it was CAVU.

Oh yea, your DPE sounds like a real piece of work.

Doug

 

[douglas393]

Did you read my original post? We didn't just fly straight and level for 30 minutes. We turned to many headings I just kept the average of them going in one direction. We did five or six unusual attitudes. We did a lot -- because I was trying to make it unlikely that he'd know our average direction even if he were paying attention to the compass because I wanted the end result to be the student lost.

I am at the "rubber meets the road" stage with this particular student. I'm trying to make things hard, push him, watch him crack and see how he recovers from that. This stuff isn't supposed to be easy.

Hey I am sorry. Then I stand corrected. It was so long ago I read your original note I forgot the specifics. It was a well spent 30 minutes. Like I said in my previous post I thought your scenario was a great idea. I wish my CFI did something like that.

Doug

 

[milestogo]

I fly the PGD to PMP route at least onec a month. I may have missed something but I believe it is just outside the shelf. The big problem is its proximity to FXE more so than BCT. I am surprised the tower gave you a hard time and did not recommend to call ATC, (though I probably would have first called Miami ATC and asked for flight following and told them I had equipment failure, no VOR, or GPS and needed vectors to PMP.) This would have eliminated all of the problems. If you called the tower my guess is the could not give you vectors because they do not have that ability given they do not have radar.

In any case, sitting in my office behind a computer, makes saying what I would do a lot easier than if I was actually flying.

I took my PPL on a day with clouds very low and almost cancelled it. My DPE convinced me to try it anyhow, and it actually was a great experience. I learned more about flying that day than almost any other day prior to that. I used the same one for my IFR checkride and same experience in terms of learning. Too bad that day it was CAVU.

Oh yea, your DPE sounds like a real piece of work.

Doug

You're right, it's not quite under the shelf but just north of it. Now that I am based at FXE, I have intimate familiarity with the area You ATC approach and equipment failure approach would have been a good one. I still don't love the idea of telling ATC I have a failure when it's really only simulated.

 

[douglas393]

You're right, it's not quite under the shelf but just north of it. Now that I am based at FXE, I have intimate familiarity with the area You ATC approach and equipment failure approach would have been a good one. I still don't love the idea of telling ATC I have a failure when it's really only simulated.

You could have told them you were doing a checkride and it was a simulated failure and so not a true emergency. My guess is they still would have helped out. Alternatively, just ask for flight following and leave it at that with no explanation. By the way, the restaurant at FXE has amazing food.

Doug

 

[Velocity173]

I will say the guy didn't have many ground features to go on in that area. Flat, no lakes or defining rivers. Still with the VOR option it shouldn't have been that difficult. Me being a former controller, that's when I call game over. I'm climbing and contacting Lincoln App and telling them I'm slightly disoriented and would like a vector to Seward.

 

[milestogo]

You could have told them you were doing a checkride and it was a simulated failure and so not a true emergency. My guess is they still would have helped out. Alternatively, just ask for flight following and leave it at that with no explanation. By the way, the restaurant at FXE has amazing food.

Doug

Yes, the Jet Café. They have surprisingly amazing food. I mean write home about good. I especially like the Spanish Chicken. There cookies are pretty good too!

 

[wabower]

I'd suggest that you find a way to adapt to the scenario-based stuff, since that's the way the training is being administered and encouraged by the man. All methods have their drawbacks, but we have painfully learned that "recite from memory and go through the motions" isn't producing the results we need.

I agree that your DPE may have overplayed his hand on the first example.

I have a real problem with these artificially induced scenarios. It happened on my PPL check-ride (which I passed). It started to go downhill when he told me to fly up to the clouds the check how high they were. As it broke VFR minimums I refused and he grabbled the controls from me and flew up to the base of the clouds. Jerk.

He put me under the hood for a while and got me lost in the everglades. Then he failed my GPS and VOR and asked me to fly direct to Pompano which is under a class C shelf and in between Ft Lauderdale Exec and Boca - a difficult find. In the REAL world I would never attempt that the way he wanted. I would simply fly north to the antennas and west to Lantana or northwest to Okeechobee and land at PHK which is easily identifiable.

But he insisted I find it and fly now direct. So I dialed up tower and requested vectors which were refused. The tower suggested I get familiar with the area before flying there which also irked me. In the REAL world if I absolutely had to land at Pompano (I don't see why, see above) I would tell them I had a complete navigation failure but I didn't think that was something should do given this was a simulation. I did my best and almost violated FXE airspace before I recognized FXE, turned north, found Pompano and landed.

Any instructor that simulates these artificial situations should at least allow the student to act in an appropriate real world manner. If I knew then what I know now, I would have just done the right thing and dared him to fail me. It started to go bad when he violated VFR minimums flying up to the cloud base. To this day I think he is an unprofessional #@*. But I passed. My landings were perfect that day.

 

[douglas393]

I will say the guy didn't have many ground features to go on in that area. Flat, no lakes or defining rivers. Still with the VOR option it shouldn't have been that difficult. Me being a former controller, that's when I call game over. I'm climbing and contacting Lincoln App and telling them I'm slightly disoriented and would like a vector to Seward.

Possibly it would not have helped him initially, his DG was off, which as someone has pointed out was part of the solution to the problem. Hopefully, it would have then clued him into checking the DG.

Doug

 

[milestogo]

I'd suggest that you find a way to adapt to the scenario-based stuff, since that's the way the training is being administered and encouraged by the man. All methods have their drawbacks, but we have painfully learned that "recite from memory and go through the motions" isn't producing the results we need.

I agree that your DPE may have overplayed his hand on the first example.

I might be reacting a bit harshly but I think we got off on the wrong foot with the cloud incident. I've logged almost 300 x-country hours since then so have a different perspective than a nervous 70 hour PPL candidate.

 

[spiderweb]

I have trained without GPS. This has nothing to do with Navigation.

Things start breaking in my plane, I care. You old timmers might not, but I do.

Call me a sissy for not liking electrical failures while I fly. But I am landing.

First of all, I thought we were talking about getting lost, as that's the title of this thread. So, GPS has everything to do with navigation.

If you have an electrical failure, I agree it is good to get on the ground ASAP.

 

[wabower]

Whatever you're doing appears to be working. Keep it up.

I might be reacting a bit harshly but I think we got off on the wrong foot with the cloud incident. I've logged almost 300 x-country hours since then so have a different perspective than a nervous 70 hour PPL candidate.

 

[spiderweb]

Did you read my original post? We didn't just fly straight and level for 30 minutes. We turned to many headings I just kept the average of them going in one direction. We did five or six unusual attitudes. We did a lot -- because I was trying to make it unlikely that he'd know our average direction even if he were paying attention to the compass because I wanted the end result to be the student lost.

I am at the "rubber meets the road" stage with this particular student. I'm trying to make things hard, push him, watch him crack and see how he recovers from that. This stuff isn't supposed to be easy.

As a 27-year instructor, I think Jesse's approach is sound. The basic thing an instructor does is to first build up (skill and knowledge), then start to break down. You get your weapons and armour, and learn how to use them; then you fight.

 

[rottydaddy]

Great comments, plus I would think you would want to conserve fuel. Slow would do that.

A good point. If you were near the end of a long leg, pretty sure you were close to you reserves, and you realized you were not seeing your intended destination where it should be, it would be vital to conserve fuel while turning. After all, you're not going anywhere while circling, and now that you're off course,you may need more fuel than you'd planned to get to your destination.

First find out where you are, then figure out how long/how much fuel to where you want to go, then an alternate, if you're far enough off course that Plan A will no longer work without a fuel stop.
That's a pretty unusual example, but thinking of fuel in any "lost" situation is a good habit.
Mostly, though, I think flying slowly, whether circling or not, while fixing a nav problem is wise just to minimize busting airspaces... or the airplane. And if weather is part of the nav problem, flying slow gives you a better chance of staying in VMC. Regardless of what nav tools you have, they will be inside the plane, and you will be forced to look down quite a bit.

 

[Mafoo]

As a 27-year instructor, I think Jesse's approach is sound. The basic thing an instructor does is to first build up (skill and knowledge), then start to break down. You get your weapons and armour, and learn how to use them; then you fight.

I never had a problem with his approach. I thought it was clever, and would welcome it as something I would have to go through. However if Jesse was my CFI, it would go something like this after the 430 went black and I realized I was lost:

Me: I assume VOR is down (might be a mistake, but his student did the same)
Me: I pull out my iPhone and iPad
CFI: those can not get a GPS lock (even though the iPhone will work off cell tower, but ok)

Me: I climb and look around for landmarks. I see nothing obvious.
Me: I call flight services to tell them I am lost. No response.
Me: I realize I have no VOR, GPS, my vacuums instruments are unreliable, my Com is not working right, I make the call to find the closest airport and see if I can land.

CFI: Take me home, you are not a pilot.

Sorry, that's BS.

 

[jesse]

I never had a problem with his approach. I thought it was clever, and would welcome it as something I would have to go through. However if Jesse was my CFI, it would go something like this after the 430 went black and I realized I was lost:

Me: I assume VOR is down (might be a mistake, but his student did the same)
Me: I pull out my iPhone and iPad
CFI: those can not get a GPS lock (even though the iPhone will work off cell tower, but ok)

Me: I climb and look around for landmarks. I see nothing obvious.
Me: I call flight services to tell them I am lost. No response.
Me: I realize I have no VOR, GPS, my vacuums instruments are unreliable, my Com is not working right, I make the call to find the closest airport and see if I can land.

CFI: Take me home, you are not a pilot.

Sorry, that's BS.

sigh.

You do realize that this student is a product of my instruction? I wouldn't throw a challenge at him that he hasn't been provided the necessary building blocks to assemble a solution that defeats the challenge.

 

[pilot_dude]

It appears your training of the student was not satisfactory.

 

[Mafoo]

sigh.

You do realize that this student is a product of my instruction? I wouldn't throw a challenge at him that he hasn't been provided the necessary building blocks to assemble a solution that defeats the challenge.

The issue is that you think my response to your setup is not a solution that defeats your challenge. I have every confidence in the world I could continue to fly around and figure out where I am. There is a 90% chance that once I fine an airport, I will know where I am. I take issue with the conservative approch as failure.

 

[wabower]

The student blanked out. Everything after that was geared to letting him work through the problem on his own, as would have been required in a real-life situation.

It appears your training of the student was not satisfactory.

 

[wabower]

But that's not how you responded when first confronted with the problem. Monday-morning quarterbacks have a much higher percentage than the guys who play on the weekend.

The issue is that you think my response to your setup is not a solution that defeats your challenge. I have every confidence in the world I could continue to fly around and figure out where I am. There is a 90% chance that once I fine an airport, I will know where I am. I take issue with the conservative approch as failure.

 

[pilot_dude]

The student blanked out. Everything after that was geared to letting him work through the problem on his own, as would have been required in a real-life situation.

IMHO had the training been satisfactory he wouldn't have blanked out. Due to my excellent training I knew exactly what to do during an engine failure 1 week after earning my ticket. There was no thought, just appropriate action.

 

[Mafoo]

But that's not how you responded when first confronted with the problem. Monday-morning quarterbacks have a much higher percentage than the guys who play on the weekend.

That's exactly how I responded.

 

[Mafoo]

I started at post 11, and summed up everything I just said by post 45.

 

[jesse]

IMHO had the training been satisfactory he wouldn't have blanked out. Due to my excellent training I knew exactly what to do during an engine failure 1 week after earning my ticket. There was no thought, just appropriate action.

Get back to me when you're an experienced flight instructor. If you figure out a way to teach someone all the building blocks and they don't fall down a few times when they try to stack several up at once for the first time you'll make more money than the kings.

Students and flight instructors alike are not perfect and neither will perform perfectly which is why training has its good days and its bad days. At the end we just try to make pilots that mostly have good days.

 

[pilot_dude]

Experience doesn't always equate to quality of instruction. I know several experienced instructors that I wouldn't take instruction from. I'm not inferring you are a poor instructor but rather the instruction provided may not have been satisfactory for this specific individual.