Instructing pet peeves.....
- Thread starter Goonie
- Start date
exleardriver
Well-Known Member
student pilot or flight review: easily not flying a squared pattern. i'm quite often reminding that most of the time we take-off into the wind, therefore the turn x-wind will be less than 90 degrees, the base turn more than 90 degrees to compensate for drift. otherwise, they fly a 'parallelogram pattern'. also don't like to see the 'racetrack' pattern.
instrument student: flying with a pistol grip. unless the airplane is departing (upwind) or on final, both hands should be used albeit lightly with the minimal fingertip pressures required. the fleshy part of the hand has fewer nerve endings and thus is far less sensitive to changes in control pressure so important in instrument flight.
oh...and 'when are we going to start flying approaches?' answer: as soon as you can control the airplane by instrument reference, understand the procedures and can communicate on the radio.
commercial: 'i can already do short and soft-field landings..we probably won't really need to waste much time on those..'
multi-engine: 'can we use my apache..?'
cfi: 'what are northwest airlink's minimums now?'
instrument student: flying with a pistol grip. unless the airplane is departing (upwind) or on final, both hands should be used albeit lightly with the minimal fingertip pressures required. the fleshy part of the hand has fewer nerve endings and thus is far less sensitive to changes in control pressure so important in instrument flight.
oh...and 'when are we going to start flying approaches?' answer: as soon as you can control the airplane by instrument reference, understand the procedures and can communicate on the radio.
commercial: 'i can already do short and soft-field landings..we probably won't really need to waste much time on those..'
multi-engine: 'can we use my apache..?'
cfi: 'what are northwest airlink's minimums now?'
Whats wrong with an Apache?student pilot or flight review: easily not flying a squared pattern. i'm quite often reminding that most of the time we take-off into the wind, therefore the turn x-wind will be less than 90 degrees, the base turn more than 90 degrees to compensate for drift. otherwise, they fly a 'parallelogram pattern'. also don't like to see the 'racetrack' pattern.
instrument student: flying with a pistol grip. unless the airplane is departing (upwind) or on final, both hands should be used albeit lightly with the minimal fingertip pressures required. the fleshy part of the hand has fewer nerve endings and thus is far less sensitive to changes in control pressure so important in instrument flight.
oh...and 'when are we going to start flying approaches?' answer: as soon as you can control the airplane by instrument reference, understand the procedures and can communicate on the radio.
commercial: 'i can already do short and soft-field landings..we probably won't really need to waste much time on those..'
multi-engine: 'can we use my apache..?'
cfi: 'what are northwest airlink's minimums now?'
FLY SAFE T.C.
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
How about because the checklists says to do it? The only POH I have handy is for a C210....part of the before landing check is "props high rpm."
Though it has been a while, every prop plane I can recall, including the King Airs had "props high rpm" on the before landing check.
flyboy6585
Well-Known Member
You have never had a deer run right in front of you at about 2 inches off the ground. I think that your arguement that it is just as easy to grab the whole quadrent and shove everything forward is lame, no offense.
First at higher altitude airport you might need the mixture leaned to get the necessary performance and if you are going to grab two knobs then what is going to stop you in a hurry from grabbing three. And if you forget to push the prop forward at high density altitude airports you might not clear possible obstacles
Second, every POH that I have ever seen has as one of its landing items, "props full forward." I know that everything that a POH isn't absolutely correct and has the tendency to change over time, but it is in "every POH" and they can't all be wrong.
Third, you are teaching bad cockpit management skills to your students. Why not just move the darn knob forward on final when you have a free second rather than creating the need for extra extra steps and thoughts in the first few critical seconds of a late go-around.
Bottom line, most of the time your method works perfectly well, but the one time that one of your students uses this method and the outcome involves bent metal or possible injuries, it is going to come back and haunt you. I don't care how you do it yourself, but when you are teaching students you have the responsibility to make sure that they are able to fly the aircraft in a safe manner at all times.
I hope that this doesn't sound like I am harping too much but this is my honest opinion.
skycowboy
New Member
The issue of people learnig differently, coupled with the fact that flying for a human initially is about as natural as plastic accounts for me being patient usually with reminding people to do things like "Kee that hand on that throttle as we are taking off..."
However what gets me is when people show up and take 10 lessons and then never come back again! Or never call... or ect ect...
However what gets me is when people show up and take 10 lessons and then never come back again! Or never call... or ect ect...
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
Not if done properly.
I hate to keep bringing up insurance companies...but. If any of these company "policies" are against the guidance in the AFM/POH or Checklist then the FAA with fault the pilots as a contributing factor in any accident (whether a factor in the accident or not) and the insurance company with seize the opportunity to avoid reimbursement claims. Saying "the passengers think it's noisy" won't cut it.
However you chose to do it, makes sure it is under the direction of the manufacturer.
I was always taught to go props high in every plane I flew that had a constant speed prop. In the Bonanza I flew in for my commercial, it was real gentle about going props high. It was like putting in the mixture. Hardly a change.
The baron I got my multi- in was a bit different. No matter what airspeed I was at, it would increase the engine sound by about twice as much when going props high. It always felt like I was straining the engine when putting the props forward...
In the Baron, I'd say it's all right to not go props high on final. It had the old style levers that were above the yoke column. If I needed to do a go around, I wouldn't be too hard to advance them forward first. In the bonanza though, it had the caliper levers much like a Cessna 182. In a plane like that I'd go props high no matter what. It would take an extra few seconds to get those props high, and that might effect safety someday.
More on topic, a big pet peeve of mine is students talking over the radio. It sucks when you're student is first learning how to instrument approaches, so you're on the radio, while the student is flying. You're coming in on an GPS, while theres 3 other people in the pattern. While you're on 1 mile final someone comes on the radio to say "Blah traffic, Cessna 12345 turing ba--" then your student interrupts by saying "um hey we are not at MDA". I can't really blame the students because my flight school has a SOP which has them doing call outs at just about every single phase of flight, it seems.
No matter how much I harp on them DO NOT TALK OVER THE DAMN RADIO it's never seems to end.
The baron I got my multi- in was a bit different. No matter what airspeed I was at, it would increase the engine sound by about twice as much when going props high. It always felt like I was straining the engine when putting the props forward...
In the Baron, I'd say it's all right to not go props high on final. It had the old style levers that were above the yoke column. If I needed to do a go around, I wouldn't be too hard to advance them forward first. In the bonanza though, it had the caliper levers much like a Cessna 182. In a plane like that I'd go props high no matter what. It would take an extra few seconds to get those props high, and that might effect safety someday.
More on topic, a big pet peeve of mine is students talking over the radio. It sucks when you're student is first learning how to instrument approaches, so you're on the radio, while the student is flying. You're coming in on an GPS, while theres 3 other people in the pattern. While you're on 1 mile final someone comes on the radio to say "Blah traffic, Cessna 12345 turing ba--" then your student interrupts by saying "um hey we are not at MDA". I can't really blame the students because my flight school has a SOP which has them doing call outs at just about every single phase of flight, it seems.
No matter how much I harp on them DO NOT TALK OVER THE DAMN RADIO it's never seems to end.
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
It depends on th engine/prop combo. At a certain point in power reduction the prop is on the low pitch stop and the governor is no longer controlling. Once the stop is reached, the prop can be pushed forward with no change in sound.
Danger, semantics follow.
I would wager that the POI signature on your profiles say "accepted" as opposed to "approved."
But like I said, if it's being operated as directed by the manufacturer, it's not an issue either way.
PanJet
Well-Known Member
Okay, first of all, there is clearly a disagreement about when to push the props forward on aircraft. I've seen a lot of answers one way or the other, but I'm going to ride the fence and say this: it depends.
Now, I always teach my students to push the props forward in case of a go-around. Now whether or not you agree with me or whether or not you think it matters, I'll give you one good reason for why I do it: for the planes I teach in it says to do so in the POH. In both my Arrow POH and my Seminole POH, it says to advance the prop levers to full RPM position before landing in case you need to go around. Whether you teach it or not is up to you, but I see no reason to knock teaching it, especially since it's in the POH, which is good enough reason for me to teach it, regardless of how necessary it is.
Now there are also times when I've been taught not to advance the props before landing. This is usually only the case in larger aircraft, however, such as the King Air I've had the opportunity to fly several times. I was taught not to advance the props until touchdown to keep them from surging and making extra noise. Then, of course, they must be advanced after touchdown to ensure that both props reverse together. Once again, it's right in the King Air's normal operation procedures in the POH to advance the propellers after touchdown.
Basically my point is that you guys are all correct, but it really depends on the situation, so it's probably just best to consult the POH for whatever aircraft you're flying.
Okay, all that said, my pet peeve with students is not correcting for wind drift after beginning the flare. I know that they'll learn with time, but for some reason I've had several students that correct for drift, but as soon as they enter the flare it's like they just hope it'll touch down before they drift off the side of the runway, and it took them forever to break the habit. :banghead:
Now, I always teach my students to push the props forward in case of a go-around. Now whether or not you agree with me or whether or not you think it matters, I'll give you one good reason for why I do it: for the planes I teach in it says to do so in the POH. In both my Arrow POH and my Seminole POH, it says to advance the prop levers to full RPM position before landing in case you need to go around. Whether you teach it or not is up to you, but I see no reason to knock teaching it, especially since it's in the POH, which is good enough reason for me to teach it, regardless of how necessary it is.
Now there are also times when I've been taught not to advance the props before landing. This is usually only the case in larger aircraft, however, such as the King Air I've had the opportunity to fly several times. I was taught not to advance the props until touchdown to keep them from surging and making extra noise. Then, of course, they must be advanced after touchdown to ensure that both props reverse together. Once again, it's right in the King Air's normal operation procedures in the POH to advance the propellers after touchdown.
Basically my point is that you guys are all correct, but it really depends on the situation, so it's probably just best to consult the POH for whatever aircraft you're flying.
Okay, all that said, my pet peeve with students is not correcting for wind drift after beginning the flare. I know that they'll learn with time, but for some reason I've had several students that correct for drift, but as soon as they enter the flare it's like they just hope it'll touch down before they drift off the side of the runway, and it took them forever to break the habit. :banghead:
jjm
Well-Known Member
the hardest thing I have dealing with is students who are 5-10 flights away from a checkride in my mind but in their mind-- 1-2 flights. Those are tough. A lot of pushy behavior combined with decreased performance levels (because they might be nervous about the checkride or burnt out)... just a tough couple of weeks for me as the instructor.
Good luck figuring this stuff out-- lots of good insight here on BOTH sides. I've been taught to bring them forward on final and I can see how it might differ between aircraft, like a King Air.
j
Good luck figuring this stuff out-- lots of good insight here on BOTH sides. I've been taught to bring them forward on final and I can see how it might differ between aircraft, like a King Air.
j
uofmcp1201
Well-Known Member
Goonie
Never say die
i heart india
uofmcp1201
Well-Known Member
I want to switch instructors!!! I need to be back by _________<Fill in most unrealistic finish date> to take my exams.
jrh
Well-Known Member
I don't think he's saying to fly everything like a P-51. He's merely pointing out that some of the benefits from this procedure in a P-51 (less torque roll, quieter, etc.) also apply to some extent in high performance singles. How many students have you seen drift to the left during a go around because they don't apply enough right rudder? I've seen it over and over, and that's all from teaching in sub-200 horsepower aircraft. It might not be a huge deal, but it's definitely noticeable, and Deakin's technique addresses the issue.
Deakin specifically mentioned high density altitude airports and how pushing the props forward under such circumstances would be better because the engine won't be able to produce enough torque to roll the plane anyway.
The lesson I believe is most important here is to actively fly the plane, rather than push buttons and pull knobs at certain points simply because that's the way it's always been done.
We teach using a set procedure for most operations, with exceptions for other situations. For instance, normally mixtures are rich for takeoff and landing, *unless* operating at high density altitude. Another example would be when to extend or keep retracted the landing gear after an engine failure in a single. Normally it would be extended, *unless* the landing surface is composed of something that might make the aircraft flip over by snagging the wheels (water or deep mud being common examples).
Pilots have to think about what situations they're putting themselves in and I don't see why operating a constant speed prop would be any different. Why is it so terrible to say, "Leave the prop at cruise setting for landing, *unless* conditions X, Y, or Z apply..."?
Oh, and for the record, I teach students to push the prop forward on either base or final, whenever the engine is clearly "off the governor" as NJA_Capt described a few posts ago. I teach that way because of the benefits previously mentioned with regard to power available during a go around, no additional noise, etc. but I'm not so set in my ways as to say it has to be done that way every time. If I picked up a new student who left the prop at cruise setting for landing and they understood the implications of what they were doing, I wouldn't bother trying to retrain them. It's just not that big of a deal, assuming the pilot understands what is going on.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
1. Taco Pits. On the ground and in the plane, not fun. Sometimes it is hard to see and avoid when my eyes are watering from the pungent stench coming from my students.
2. I only have 3 hours, but I feel I am not learning enough. I want a new instructor.
3. 800 FPM descent turning from crosswind to downwind.
4. The famous no-right-rudder power on stall.
With regard to the props full forward bit, I don't think it is that big of a deal as long as the manifold pressure is back far enough not to cause a surge.
2. I only have 3 hours, but I feel I am not learning enough. I want a new instructor.
3. 800 FPM descent turning from crosswind to downwind.
4. The famous no-right-rudder power on stall.
With regard to the props full forward bit, I don't think it is that big of a deal as long as the manifold pressure is back far enough not to cause a surge.