Training tips and tricks?

[LDJones]

Why not teach them to carry a touch more power or steeper approaches with 40* and teach them to land with minimum possible energy rather than how to just make it easy by eliminating ability and decreasing safety?

I do...once they master the basics. Why create more frustration at that point in training?

 

[Henning]

I do...once they master the basics. Why create more frustration at that point in training?

Primacy, pay less now or more later unlearning bad habits.

 

[LDJones]

Primacy, pay less now or more later unlearning bad habits.

No "bad habits" are learned. Just different skills in the appropriate sequence.

 

[Henning]

No "bad habits" are learned. Just different skills in the appropriate sequence.

Sure there is, you just taught them that the way to add energy to a landing to make it 'easy' is you carry more kinetic energy rather than adding chemical energy. That's not only a bad habit, it's dangerous. Reduced flaps should be the oddball situation taught later after they have achieved the control of the aircraft in standard configuration, not as a crutch.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Why not teach them to carry a touch more power or steeper approaches with 40* and teach them to land with minimum possible energy rather than how to just make it easy by eliminating ability and decreasing safety?

When they're ready, absolutely.

After that, when BFI tower asks for short approach because of heavy traffic, I teach by demonstration of a short approach from downwind in a full-flaps, nose-way-down and agressively slipping, 180 degree turn to final and touch down.

I've not timed it but, it definately gets you safely out of the 1000 AGL pattern very fast, to touch down at minimum speed. I'll estimate less than 20 seconds complete.

 

[Henning]

When they're ready, absolutely.

After that, when BFI tower asks for short approach because of heavy traffic, I teach by demonstration of a short approach from downwind in a full-flaps, nose-way-down and agressively slipping, 180 degree turn to final and touch down.

I've not timed it but, it definately gets you safely out of the 1000 AGL pattern very fast, to touch down at minimum speed. I'll estimate less than 20 seconds complete.

From my recollection a short approach at BFI involved a tight slipping turn around the tower and a dive for the runway as the flaps all roll in....

 

[LDJones]

Sure there is, you just taught them that the way to add energy to a landing to make it 'easy' is you carry more kinetic energy rather than adding chemical energy. That's not only a bad habit, it's dangerous. Reduced flaps should be the oddball situation taught later after they have achieved the control of the aircraft in standard configuration, not as a crutch.

We disagree. For training purposes in a 150, 30 deg is full flaps. Makes it fly like most other trainer class planes they'll fly including 152s....and avoids teaching them to "use chemical energy" to drag it in under power. It's also a better bet when the chemical energy burner stops burning chemicals.

Feel free to teach your students however you choose and I'll do the same.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

From my recollection a short approach at BFI involved a tight slipping turn around the tower and a dive for the runway as the flaps all roll in....

That 90 deg direction change of the "mid-field base" on the west side would be similar to the 180 from downwind on the east side, good memory.

 

[wabower]

Aren't FBO's in the business of renting planes? If so, why would they self-impose a butt-load of restrictions on their use? Isn't that counter-productive to business?

I'm guessing it's also horse ****. FBO's use insurance as an excuse all the time. Ask to see the policy, I bet you won't find any of the above restrictions in it...

 

[Henning]

Aren't FBO's in the business of renting planes? If so, why would they self-impose a butt-load of restrictions on their use? Isn't that counter-productive to business?

You would think, but I've seen FBOs turn away perfectly good business before.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Feel free to teach your students however you choose and I'll do the same.

The only problem with that is Henning is not a CFI.

 

[LDJones]

The only problem with that is Henning is not a CFI.

Oh....well, he's an expert on everything....at least in his own mind. Perhaps he's teaching some invisible friends.

 

[gismo]

I do...once they master the basics. Why create more frustration at that point in training?

I agree. As long as the students are eventually expected to be capable of using all the tools the airplane they're flying I see no need to complicate things up front. And I'm an advocate of using full flaps on virtually all landings in most light airplanes.

 

[LDJones]

I agree. As long as the students are eventually expected to be capable of using all the tools the airplane they're flying I see no need to complicate things up front. And I'm an advocate of using full flaps on virtually all landings in most light airplanes.

As am I....touchdown should always be at slowest speed safely possible, which usually means full flaps....but not always.

 

[Henning]

As am I....touchdown should always be at slowest speed safely possible, which usually means full flaps....but not always.

Barring the flaps not working, how can the lowest possible safe speed not be achieved with full flaps?

 

[LDJones]

Barring the flaps not working, how can the lowest possible safe speed not be achieved with full flaps?

"Safe" involves multiple factors, sometimes dictating a higher speed, i.e.

1) When full flaps can create excessive sink, like in a C150
2) When crosswinds/gusts dictate carrying more speed

 

[Henning]

"Safe" involves multiple factors, sometimes dictating a higher speed, i.e.

1) When full flaps can create excessive sink, like in a C150
2) When crosswinds/gusts dictate carrying more speed

Why can you not carry the extra speed or control sink with full flaps?

 

[Alexb2000]

"Safe" involves multiple factors, sometimes dictating a higher speed, i.e.

1) When full flaps can create excessive sink, like in a C150
2) When crosswinds/gusts dictate carrying more speed

I would like to ask you more about number 2. I am a believer that in most all small GA aircraft (typical 30 degree flaps) you should be able to land full flaps and short in any crosswind/gust at least to the factory tested limits. My thinking has always been that in an emergency you very likely will need to land short, better be really comfortable doing that with a crosswind (or any wind scenario).

So why carry more speed?

 

[jesse]

Somewhere along the training path I like to demonstrate the "trapped on top of a layer with total gyro and electrical failure" scenario. I know it's a trumped-up deal but helps demonstrate aircraft performance and behavior characteristics that the student may not have seen before.

At altitude, tell the student to maintain S heading on the compass, power to idle, full flaps, full aft trim. Then tell him to cross his arms on his chest and control direction with rudder input only. Plane will slow to slightly over VSO and descend nicely with minor bobbing oscillations that may briefly activate the horn. Student's confidence and understanding in the maneuver, and the simplicity involved in achieving it, are usually "wow, I had no idea it would do that."

For simulated IMC demo or more realistic failure, use the same drill with foggles or hood on the student and a bath towel thrown over the panel.

I personally really think one is better off just teaching them to hyper-focus on the attitude indicator and pull the power out for a nice stable descent at a reasonable airspeed.

 

[LDJones]

Why can you not carry the extra speed or control sink with full flaps?

I can, most pre-solo students (and some private pilots I've flown with) can't.That is a skill my students will acquire through training...but not necessarily by the time they solo.

So I will leave it there. You can get your CFI ticket and teach whatever/however you wish.

 

[Henning]

I personally really think one is better off just teaching them to hyper-focus on the attitude indicator and pull the power out for a nice stable descent at a reasonable airspeed.

That wouldn't cover the full gyro failure speced in the drill though.

 

[wabower]

Whatever blows your skirt. And I wouldn't consider a trapped on top scenario as particularly effective with the gyros working, or have much reason to instruct the use of the compass.

I personally really think one is better off just teaching them to hyper-focus on the attitude indicator and pull the power out for a nice stable descent at a reasonable airspeed.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm not doing any training there so I have no need to push it. I do know the chief pilot at one who confirmed it and said it was all done to get the insurance rate low enough to potentially turn a profit.

Almost every pilot I talk to, you included, say they have heard of similar insurance restrictions.

I've heard of them all over the place, but I've never seen any insurance policy that actually has the restrictions. It's just a convenient excuse for the FBO so they don't have to explain the poor reasoning behind their own choices.

Just a sad dis-service IMO. I would think our stats would be better if new pilots trained in almost every scenario they are likely to encounter. Crosswinds, tailwinds, grass, flying at gross, soft field (real), etc, etc.

Agreed! I specifically wanted to (and did) train at an FBO that allowed landing on unpaved surfaces. I didn't want my first landing on an unpaved surface to be when the fan up front quit.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Aren't FBO's in the business of renting planes? If so, why would they self-impose a butt-load of restrictions on their use? Isn't that counter-productive to business?

Yup, businesses have never made dumb decisions...

I think the owners of the FBO's like to impose restrictions because they don't like others to do things that they don't personally agree with.

I've heard this no-unpaved-fields thing a bunch of times, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the owner of the FBO trained at a nice big paved strip and has never landed on grass themselves, so they don't think anyone else should do it either. Since most new students have only been on airliners, they don't think of grass runways as being "real" runways and they have no desire to land on them either, and the cycle repeats.

 

[denverpilot]

Could also be because they know they're paying bottom dollar for their CFIs and don't hire the experienced ones.

Usually the experienced CFIs will twist their arms if there's no real insurance limitation to allow at least "checked out" CFIs to teach dual all the way down to a non-pavement surface.

Ya just never know what's really going on until you start asking. You're their customer, it's worth being a friendly pest sometimes. Once in a while, it changes things.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Could also be because they know they're paying bottom dollar for their CFIs and don't hire the experienced ones.

Usually the experienced CFIs will twist their arms if there's no real insurance limitation to allow at least "checked out" CFIs to teach dual all the way down to a non-pavement surface.

Ya just never know what's really going on until you start asking. You're their customer, it's worth being a friendly pest sometimes. Once in a while, it changes things.

Ask for a few hours extra check-out with one of their CFIs in whichever restricted environment you wish to fly in, and I've found it almost always granted, except in seaplanes.

 

[wabower]

I'd guess that the unpaved restriction might actually be insurance-driven. As a general rule, grass runways tend to be shorter, narrower, and in many ways trickier than paved airports, so I don't have any beef with the insurance company's desire to limit their losses.

OTOH, I'd like to have an exemption for operation at specific non-paved airports at which the students have been trained by a knowledgeable instructor. But since we are now forced to think of any runway less than 3,000' as "a short strip" I think it's unlikely that anything will change.

Yup, businesses have never made dumb decisions...

I think the owners of the FBO's like to impose restrictions because they don't like others to do things that they don't personally agree with.

I've heard this no-unpaved-fields thing a bunch of times, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the owner of the FBO trained at a nice big paved strip and has never landed on grass themselves, so they don't think anyone else should do it either. Since most new students have only been on airliners, they don't think of grass runways as being "real" runways and they have no desire to land on them either, and the cycle repeats.

 

[Henning]

I'd guess that the unpaved restriction might actually be insurance-driven. As a general rule, grass runways tend to be shorter, narrower, and in many ways trickier than paved airports, so I don't have any beef with the insurance company's desire to limit their losses.

OTOH, I'd like to have an exemption for operation at specific non-paved airports at which the students have been trained by a knowledgeable instructor. But since we are now forced to think of any runway less than 3,000' as "a short strip" I think it's unlikely that anything will change.

I've noticed that as well, when did that happen? I consider 3000' short in the 310 only because of accellerate-stop distances, but even if I make it to 91kts and cut, I'm not gonna be much over 25 going off the end, no worries really. As far as what I need for the 310 in normal ops is 1200'.

 

[JHW]

I'd guess that the unpaved restriction might actually be insurance-driven. As a general rule, grass runways tend to be shorter, narrower, and in many ways trickier than paved airports, so I don't have any beef with the insurance company's desire to limit their losses.

OTOH, I'd like to have an exemption for operation at specific non-paved airports at which the students have been trained by a knowledgeable instructor. But since we are now forced to think of any runway less than 3,000' as "a short strip" I think it's unlikely that anything will change.

seems silly to have a blanket prohibition just based on runway surface. Here's the strip where we have our other hangars, 2800ft long, 200ft wide, lights, and the fence at the end is all of 4 ft high. When Diana was on her grass strip tour she somehow managed to shoehorn her citabria in and out of this short, narrow death trap.

 

[Jeanie]

"10 knot maximum crosswind component with instructor, 5 solo"

Well, if my insurance restricted us to that we'd be hard pressed to ever fly....

 

[wabower]

Death by suffocation.

seems silly to have a blanket prohibition just based on runway surface. Here's the strip where we have our other hangars, 2800ft long, 200ft wide, lights, and the fence at the end is all of 4 ft high. When Diana was on her grass strip tour she somehow managed to shoehorn her citabria in and out of this short, narrow death trap.

 

[jesse]

Whatever blows your skirt. And I wouldn't consider a trapped on top scenario as particularly effective with the gyros working, or have much reason to instruct the use of the compass.

Considering how it's extremely likely that if they get trapped on top they're going to have functioning gyros it seems like it would be best to train them how to survive using them.

 

[LDJones]

Considering how it's extremely likely that if they get trapped on top they're going to have functioning gyros it seems like it would be best to train them how to survive using them.

But that takes all the fun out of it.

 

[wabower]

I might have thought that too when I had only been instructing for a few years. Having since watched the continuing number of VMC into IMC accidents during which all gyros were presumably working and and the unexplainable failures of both pilots and machinery, especially when dry vacuum pumps are installed (including some with dual pumps) I've concluded that any training that demonstrates a way out of a potential trap is worthwhile. YMMV.

Considering how it's extremely likely that if they get trapped on top they're going to have functioning gyros it seems like it would be best to train them how to survive using them.

 

[Sleepingsquirrel]

I'm not doing any training there so I have no need to push it. I do know the chief pilot at one who confirmed it and said it was all done to get the insurance rate low enough to potentially turn a profit.

Almost every pilot I talk to, you included, say they have heard of similar insurance restrictions.

Just a sad dis-service IMO. I would think our stats would be better if new pilots trained in almost every scenario they are likely to encounter. Crosswinds, tailwinds, grass, flying at gross, soft field (real), etc, etc.

It will not be long that a student will go to the airport and get to look at the trainer tied down on the ramp. Spend an hour on the simulator then write a check for 7 gallons of gas , one hour of instruction, pro rated maintenance, and insurance, never leaving the ground! I just hope one of them doesn't fall out of the chair while spinning around . That could get Office Depot an AD and/or a lawsuit that could cost millions.

 

[nosehair]

Primacy, pay less now or more later unlearning bad habits.

Primacy does not mean demonstrating the "finished product" at the first lesson.

Building blocks of skill and knowledge, going from simple to complex, acquiring simple skills and laying a firm foundation before moving on to the more complex is how to arrive at the "finished product" or PTS maneuver that you are trying to teach.

Each little control movement that is being taught along the way should be taught correctly; this is Primacy. Good preflights, looking before turning, rudder and aileron together, etc.

The landing is the most complex of all, and yeah, most of us had it crammed down our throat- hours and hours of touch and gos using full flaps mostly and trying to learn the whole traffic pattern with the "normal routine' right from the start...but that don't make it right.

A no flap landing is at the bottom of a long power off glide. Start with a long power off glide. Of course, the student is proficient at power off glides, getting it trimmed and feeling the controls at that speed, hearing the wind at that speed, etc.

In a long power off glide, he gets comfortable and is able to focus on the point when he begins the initial back pressure, and the float is much longer, allowing for more time to see the runway alignment and depth percerption to adjust the elevator back pressure to level off just right.

The whole landing sequence is slowed down a little and is a very effective way to teach in a simulator; slowing things down to the student's speed of perception.

Of course the student is aware that this is a teaching process, and not a normal landing procedure.

As he/she gains aircraft control, flaps are introduced, a little at the time, until normal landings with full flaps are normal.

Everyone is happy and the student has averted a lot of frustration, learned to land in shorter time, and ...is actually aware that flaps are a tool that can be used by his/her judgement.

 

[jesse]

I might have thought that too when I had only been instructing for a few years. Having since watched the continuing number of VMC into IMC accidents during which all gyros were presumably working and and the unexplainable failures of both pilots and machinery, especially when dry vacuum pumps are installed (including some with dual pumps) I've concluded that any training that demonstrates a way out of a potential trap is worthwhile. YMMV.

Perhaps. But if I had to put my money on it I'd say that if they lost it -- it wasn't the lack of gyro -- it was the lack of instruction teaching them how to properly use their gyros.

Given the statistical likelihood of gyro failure and the fact that the vast majority of the fleet has a functional attitude indicator I just can't see it likely that you're going to accidentally get yourself stuck on top while at the same time you encounter a gyro failure.

I'm not saying showing someone what you described is a bad thing. But I would certainly tell them to verify that their gyros were working while they were sorting out their options on top. If they are working then trimming for a reasonable airspeed, reducing power, and focusing on the attitude indicator will be the best recipe IMO.

Before they even think about descending through a layer on top I teach them to contact ATC, declare an emergency, and sort out a plan with them. That entire scenario we mock out.

But, we all have our own opinions

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Barring the flaps not working, how can the lowest possible safe speed not be achieved with full flaps?

Improper technique could do it, unless I misread your question.

 

[Henning]

Improper technique could do it, unless I misread your question.

Exactly, teach them proper technique from primacy and you reduce the chances of later error.

 

[nosehair]

OK! Here we go, - improper technique. some of you are admitting that it exists. Whether from improper training, or lack of experience, or just getting a sudden surprise gust a split second before touchdown, improper technique exists, and will bite you if you believe you will always have the "proper technique" to always land with full flaps.

Plan on a final approach with somthing less than full flaps, then on short final, when it is certain that no lessening of control will occur and you have the runway made, then apply full flaps.

Don't go into it automatically, as if you always must land with full flaps.

This is also for light airplanes, not medium/complex machines.